'tl.^os 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 


GIFT  OF 

The  Author 


m 

E-l 


OJC 


\%s 


CV2 

M 

0^ 

M 

•> 

^ 

O 

•H 

+3 

PJ 

iH 

O 

CO 

CQ 

l>^ 

+^ 

ft 

•H 

O 

o 

nd 

03 

CQ 

g 

•H 

(D 

> 

iH 

(D 

.Q 

P^ 

O 

Jh 

P4 

+> 

<D 

THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 
AND  ITS 

SOLUTION 


BY 
EMERSON   VENABLE 


CINCINNATI 

STEWART  &  KIDD  CO. 

1912 


Copyright,  igit^ 

By  STEWART  &  KIDD  CO. 

Entered  at  Stationers'  Hall,  London,  England 


Ali  Rights  Reserved 


The  theory  advanced  in  these 
pages  was  first  suggested  by  the 
author  at  the  close  of  a  series  of  lec- 
tures on  Hamlet  delivered  in  the 
spring  of  1907,  and  was  afterwards 
presented  in  a  paper  read  before  the 
Literary  Club  of  Cincinnati,  October 
17,  1908. 


"  Report  me  and  my  cause  aright 
To  the  unsatisfied." 

Hamlet,  Act  V,  Scene  II. 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM  AND 
ITS  SOLUTION 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM  AND 
ITS  SOLUTION 


Two  hundred  years  of  critical  discus- 
sion have  not  sufficed  to  reconcile  conflict- 
ing impressions  regarding  the  scope  of 
Shakespeare's  design  in  The  Tragedy  of 
Hamlet,  No  theory  which  has  yet  been 
advanced  to  explain  the  unifying  motive  of 
the  drama  has  found  universal  acceptance 
among  scholars,  who,  however  they  may 
seem  to  agree  in  their  interpretation  of 
particular  passages,  entertain  widely  diver- 
gent opinions  concerning  the  character  and 
conduct  of  the  Prince  of  Denmark.  Why 
does  the  brave  and  high-spirited  Hamlet, 
whose  prophetic  soul  anticipates  the 
Ghost's  horrible  disclosure  with  the  im- 
petuous assurance : 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

"  Haste  me  to  know't,  that  I,  with  wings  as  swift 
As  meditation  or  the  thoughts  of  love, 
May  sweep  to  my  revenge  1  " 

—  why  does  this  noble  and  imperious 
youth  not  only  fail  to  sweep  to  hi$  re- 
venge, but  delay  the  performance  of  the 
act  for  days  and  weeks  and  months, — 
though  all  the  while,  as  he  himself  bit- 
terly confesses  (Act  IV,  Scene  IV),  he 
has  "  cause  and  will  and  strength  and 
means  to  do  it,"  and  though  he  feels  him- 
self exhorted  to  the  deed  by  "  examples 
gross  as  earth  ''? 

That  the  critic,  when  confronted  by 
the  problem  of  Hamlet's  delay,  is  not  jus- 
tified in  brushing  it  aside  as  an  immaterial 
issue,  or  in  disposing  of  it  in  vague  and  gen- 
eral terms  as  being  at  best  a  consideration 
of  minor  importance,  may  readily  be  in- 
ferred from  the  emphasis  directly  laid 
upon  the  question  in  Hamlet's  soliloquies 
and  in  his  confidential  discourse  with  Ho- 
ratio. No  other  interest  has  Shakespeare 
4 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


kept  so  constantly  before  his  audience.  It 
would  seem,  indeed,  as  though  the  great 
dramatic  master  might  have  cherished 
secret  doubts  as  to  whether  his  one  judi- 
cious critic,  whose  opinion  "  o'erweighs  a 
whole  theatre  of  others,"  would  appre- 
hend the  true  motive  of  the  tragedy  unless 
the  subjective  conflict  of  the  Prince  were 
thrust  into  relief  by  the  employment  of 
every  method  of  dramatic  emphasis  within 
the  sphere  of  his  resourceful  art.  All  of 
Hamlet's  longer  soliloquies,  excepting  the 
very  first  (Act  I,  Scene  II),  which  occurs 
before  he  has  been  informed  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Ghost,  and  the  soliloquy 
beginning,  "  To  be  or  not  to  be,"  bear 
directly  upon  the  paramount  question, — • 
the  wherefore  of  his  delay  in  wreaking 
vengeance  upon  his  uncle.  All  other 
questions  of  the  play,  however  significant 
may  be  their  relation  to  the  theme,  re- 
ceive subordinate  emphasis,  and  seem  to 
depend  for  their  settlement  upon  the  solu- 

5 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

tion  of  the  central  dramatic  problem,  the 
peculiar  difficulties  of  which  have  led  to 
the  wildest  vagaries  In  the  field  of  Hamlet 
interpretation. 

What  solutions  of  that  problem,  it 
may  be  asked,  have  been  suggested  by 
leading  writers  on  the  subject?  An  ade- 
quate exposition  of  the  many  ingenious 
and  plausible  theories  which  have  orgi- 
nated  in  England,  Germany,  and  America, 
would  fill  volumes.  Only  the  briefest  pos- 
sible discussion,  therefore,  of  five  typical 
hypotheses  that  have  found  the  widest  ac- 
ceptance among  Shakespearian  critics,  will 
here  be  attempted.^ 

Some  idea  may  at  the  outset  be  gained 
regarding  the  different  standpoints  from 
which  the  question  has  been  viewed,  when 
it  is  noted  that  of  the  five  representative 

^  For  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  literature  of 
Hamlet  criticism  the  reader  is  referred  to  Professor 
A.  C.  Bradley's  epoch-marking  volume,  Shakespearean 
Tragedy,  1905. 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


theories  which  we  have  selected  for  con- 
sideration, the  first  four  attribute  Hamlet's 
delay  wholly  to  internal  or  subjective 
causes, —  moral,  intellectual,  or  pathologi- 
cal,—  while  the  fifth  and  latest  in  origin 
discovers  a  sufficient  reason  for  his  delay 
in  causes  purely  objective. 

First  in  origin  among  theories  of  the 
former  class, — ^  those  which  seek  in  sub- 
jective causes  an  explanation  of  Hamlet's 
delay, —  is  the  so-called  "  sentimental  " 
view  of  Hamlet,  which  finds  its  chief  ex- 
positor in  Goethe,  whose  critical  conclu- 
sions are  briefly  summarized  in  the  fol- 
lowing sentences  from  Wilhelm  Meister 

(1795): 

**  To  me  it  is  clear  that  Shakespeare 
sought  to  depict  a  great  deed  laid  upon 
a  soul  unequal  to  the  performance  of  it. 
In  this  view  I  find  the  piece  composed 
throughout.  Here  is  an  oak-tree  planted 
in  a  costly  vase,  which  should  have  re- 
ceived into  its  bosom  only  lovely  flowers; 

7 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

the  roots  spread  out,  the  vase  is  shivered 
to  pieces.  A  beautiful,  pure,  noble,  and 
most  moral  nature,  without  the  strength  of 
nerve  which  makes  the  hero,  sinks  beneath 
a  burden  which  it  can  neither  bear  nor 
throw  off ;  every  duty  is  holy  to  him, —  this 
too  hard.  The  impossible  is  required  of 
him, —  not  the  impossible  in  itself,  but  the 
impossible  to  him." 

An  obvious  and  fatal  objection  to 
Goethe's  view  of  Hamlet,  and  to  all  kin- 
dred theories,  instantly  arises  when  we  con- 
sider the  triumphant  outcome  of  the  drama 
and  the  important  role  played  by  the 
Prince  in  determining  its  issues.  So  far 
from  being  represented  by  Shakespeare  as 
a  weakling,  "  without  the  strength  of  nerve 
which  makes  the  hero,"  Hamlet  not  only 
bears  with  fortitude  the  tragic  burden  laid 
upon  his  soul,  but  ultimately  accomplishes, 
in  a  single  lightning  stroke,  a  heaven-de- 
termined deed  of  retribution  so  vast  that 
the  act  of  mere  human  vengeance  which 
8 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


it  involves  is  completely  merged  in  the  di- 
viner purpose.  Thus  Hamlet  infinitely 
more  than  performs  the  sacred  duty  which 
Goethe  would  have  us  believe  to  be  "  too 
hard  ''  for  him,  and  what  the  German  poet 
characterizes  as  not  the  impossible  in  it- 
self but  the  impossible  to  Hamlet,  be- 
comes, in  the  light  of  Hamlet's  procedure, 
a  relatively  trivial  issue. — To  which  con- 
clusive refutation  of  the  "  sentimental " 
theory  may  be  added  the  trenchant  argu- 
ment of  Professor  Bradley,  who,  in  his 
illuminating  volume,  Shakespearean  Trag- 
edy,  disposes  of  Goethe's  hypothesis  in  the 
following  words : 

"  This  conception,  though  not  without 
its  basis  in  certain  beautiful  traits  of  Ham- 
let's nature,  is  utterly  untrue.  It  is  too 
kind  to  Hamlet  on  the  one  side,  and  it  is 
quite  unjust  to  him  on  another.  .  .  .  For 
the  *  sentimental '  Hamlet  you  can  feel 
only  pity  not  unmingled  with  contempt. 
.  .  .  But  consider  the  text.     This  shrink- 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

ing  flower-like  youth  —  how  could  he  pos- 
sibly have  done  what  we  see  Hamlet  do? 
What  likeness  to  him  is  there  in  the  Ham- 
let who,  summoned  by  the  Ghost,  bursts 
from  his  terrified  friends  with  the  cry: 

Unhand  me,  gentlemen! 
By  heaven,  I'll  make  a  ghost  of  him  that  lets  me; 

the  Hamlet  who  scarcely  once  speaks  to 
the  King  without  an  insult,  or  to  Polonius 
without  a  gibe;  the  Hamlet  who  storms 
at  Ophelia  and  speaks  daggers  to  his 
mother;  the  Hamlet  who,  hearing  a  cry 
behind  the  arras,  whips  out  his  sword  in 
an  instant  and  runs  the  eavesdropper 
through;  the  Hamlet  who  sends  his 
*  school-fellows  '  to  their  death  and  never 
troubles  his  head  about  them  more;  the 
Hamlet  who  is  the  first  man  to  board  a 
pirate  ship,  and  who  fights  with  Laertes 
in  the  grave;  the  Hamlet  of  the  catastro- 
phe, an  omnipotent  fate,  before  whom  all 
the  court  stands  helpless,  who,  as  the  truth 

10 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


breaks  upon  him,  rushes  on  the  King, 
drives  his  foil  right  through  his  body,  then 
seizes  the  poisoned  cup  and  forces  it  vio- 
lently between  the  wretched  man's  lips, 
and  in  the  throes  of  death  has  force  and 
fire  enough  to  wrest  the  cup  from  Hora- 
tio's hand  (*  By  heaven,  I'll  have  it!') 
lest  he  should  drink  and  die?  This  man, 
the  Hamlet  of  the  play,  is  a  heroic,  terri- 
ble figure.  He  would  have  been  formid- 
able to  Othello  or  Macbeth.  If  the  sen- 
timental Hamlet  had  crossed  him,  he 
would  have  hurled  him  from  his  path  with 
one  sweep  of  his  arm." 

The  second  of  the  typical  hypotheses 
which  we  have  selected  for  brief  review  is 
known  as  the  "  conscience  "  theory.  Ac- 
cording to  this  assumption,  "  Hamlet  was 
restrained  by  conscience  or  a  moral 
scruple ;  he  was  unable  to  convince  himself 
that  it  was  right  to  avenge  his  father." — 
The  "  conscience  "  theory,  though  less  ob- 
jectionable than  the  **  sentimental  "  theory, 
II 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

being  not  so  manifestly  at  variance  with 
our  impression  of  Hamlet  as  a  masterful 
and  heroic  nature,  finds  no  substantial  sup- 
port in  the  first  four  acts  of  the  play,  and 
fails  to  account  satisfactorily  for  the  unre- 
lenting sarcasm  with  which  the  Prince  re- 
proaches himself  for  his  delay.  In  obe- 
dience to  the  imperative  monitions  of 
honor,  Hamlet  assumes  that  he  ought  im- 
mediately to  avenge  his  father's  murder; 
nor  do  the  soliloquies  afford  the  least  evi- 
dence that  he  Is  consciously  deterred  from 
vengeance  by  a  moral  scruple. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  **  conscience  " 
theory  rests  mainly  on  the  narrow  basis 
of  a  single  speech  of  Hamlet  to  Horatio 
in  Act  V,  Scene  II :  —  *'  Does  it  not, 
thinks't  thee,  stand  me  now  upon,"  etc. — 
This  passage  undoubtedly  Involves  a  ques- 
tion of  conscience;  but  the  speech  occurs 
in  the  closing  scene  of  the  play,  and  to  give 
the  lines  a  retroactive  signification  not  in 
accord  with  the  earlier  progressive  impres- 

12 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


sions  vividly  stamped  on  the  mind  by  the 
several  soliloquies,  were  to  fall  to  appre- 
hend the  simplest  and  most  fundamental 
principle  of  all  dramatic  and  all  literary 
art. 

We  come  now  to  the  third  and,  per- 
haps, most  widely  accepted  of  the  sub- 
jective explanations  of  Hamlet's  delay. 
This  hypothesis,  which  assumes  that  the 
cause  of  his  inaction  is  irresolution  spring- 
ing from  an  "  excess  of  the  reflective  or 
speculative  habit  of  mind,'*  originated  in 
England  and  Germany  simultaneously,  in 
the  first  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
and  has  been  appropriately  named,  after 
its  authors,  the  Schlegel-Coleridge  theory. 
Schlegel  says  of  the  play :  "  The  whole 
is  intended  to  show  that  a  calculating  con- 
sideration which  exhausts  all  the  relations 
and  possible  consequences  of  a  deed,  must 
cripple  the  power  of  acting;  as  Hamlet 
himself  expresses  it: 


J3 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

*And  thus  the  native  hue  of  resolution 
Is  sicklied  o'er  with  the  pale  cast  of  thought; 
And  enterprises  of  great  pith  and  moment, 
With  this  regard,  their  currents  turn  awry, 
And  lose  the  name  of  action/ 

.  .  .  He  IS  a  hypocrite  towards  himself; 
his  far-fetched  scruples  are  often  mere  pre- 
texts to  cover  his  want  of  determination: 
thoughts,  as  he  says,  on  a  different  occa- 
sion, which  have 

*but  one  part  wisdom 
And  ever  three  parts  coward.' 

He  has  no  firm  belief  in  himself  or  in 
anything  else.  .  .  .  He  loses  himself  in 
labyrinths  of  thought." 

Coleridge  discovers  in  Hamlet  "  an  al- 
most enormous  intellectual  activity  and  a 
proportionate  aversion  to  real  action  con- 
sequent upon  it." 

What  is  the  basic  fault  of  the  Schlegel- 
Coleridge  theory?  Wherein  does  this  hy- 
pothesis fail  to  satisfy  the  vital  require- 
ments of  the  play?  The  answer  to  these 
14 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


questions  Is  not  far  to  seek.  The  theory 
implies  an  inadequate  conception  of  the 
scope  of  the  drama  similar  to  that  which 
renders  Goethe's  assumption  untenable; 
and  if  the  later  view  seems  to  answer  more 
nearly  to  our  *'  imaginative  impression  " 
of  the  character  and  conduct  of  Hamlet, 
it  is  only  because  the  error  which  it  in- 
volves, though  similar  in  kind,  is  less  in 
degree.  The  objection  which  has  been 
urged  against  the  "  sentimental  '*  theory 
may,  indeed,  be  urged  with  equal  force 
against  any  other  theory  which  attributes 
Hamlet's  delay  to  a  special  fault  or  morbid 
bias  of  nature.  The  "  almost  enormous 
intellectual  activity  "  of  Hamlet,  as  diag- 
nosed and  symptomized  by  Coleridge  and 
Schlegel,  is  a  morbid  limitation  not  less  in- 
compatible with  the  conception  of  Hamlet 
as  protagonist  of  a  drama  of  triumphant 
moral  achievement,  than  is  the  unheroic 
want  of  nerve  Ghamc^ristic  of  Goethe's 
Hamlet. 

15 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

Perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  cause  of 
the  wide  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  Hamlet's  internal  struggle  is  the 
tendency  (almost  universal  among  critics) 
to  disregard  the  fact  that  the  person,  Ham- 
let, exists  only  as  an  organic  element  of 
the  play,  and  that  therefore  any  attempt 
to  analyze  the  character  as  a  thing  apart 
from  its  dramatic  relations  must  neces- 
sarily prove  futile. 

The  most  astounding  result  of  such  an 
attempt  is  exhibited  in  the  fourth  of  our 
typical  theories,  which  assumes  that  Ham- 
let is  mad,  or  that  he  is  the  victim  of  acute 
melancholia,  being  subject  to  sudden  out- 
breaks of  insane  and  violent  passion.  In 
view  of  what  has  been  said  in  the  fore- 
going paragraphs,  it  will  readily  be  per- 
ceived that  the  "  madness "  theory  is 
wholly  indefensible.  The  arguments 
which  confute  the  theory  of  Goethe  and 
that  of  Schlegel  and  Coleridge,  reduce  to 
mere  absurdity  any  hypothesis  which  at- 
i6 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


tributes  Hamlet's  delay  to  conditions 
purely  pathological. 

As  a  stimulating  offset  and  corrective 
to  all  such  views,  it  will  not  be  unprofit- 
able, at  this  point,  before  proceeding  to 
the  consideration  of  the  fifth  and  last  of 
our  typical  theories,  to  quote  a  few  perti- 
nent sentences  from  an  eminently  sane  ap- 
preciation by  the  late  George  Henry 
Miles,  the  American  poet-critic,  whose 
brilliant  "  Review  of  Hamlet,"  first  pub- 
lished in  1870,  is  said  to  have  influenced 
Edwin  Booth  In  his  interpretation  of  the 
tragedy : 

*'  There  is  never  a  storm  in  Hamlet 
over  which  the  *  noble  and  most  sovereign 
reason '  of  the  young  prince  is  not  as  vis- 
ibly dominant  as  the  rainbow,  the  crown- 
ing grace  and  glory  of  the  scene.  .  .  • 
The  most  salient  phase  of  Hamlet's  char- 
acter is  his  superb  intellectual  superiority 
to  all  comers.  .  .  .  The  fundamental 
charm    of   Hamlet    is    its    amazing    elo- 

17 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

quence ;  its  thoughts  are  vaster  than  deeds, 
its  eloquence  mightier  than  action.  The 
tragedy,  in  its  most  imposing  aspect,  is  a 
series  of  intellectual  encounters.  .  .  . 
But  the  difficulty  of  representing  thisl 
The  enormous  difficulty  of  achieving  a 
true  tragic  success,  less  by  the  passions  and 
trials  than  by  the  pure  intellectual  splendor 
of  the  hero!  .  .  .  For  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  tragedy  is  not  only  essentially 
non-dramatic,  but  peculiarly  liable  to  mis- 
representation ;  since  any  marked  predomi- 
nance of  the  intellectual  over  the  animal 
nature  is  constantly  mistaken  for  weak- 
ness. .  .  .  The  difference  between  a 
strong  man  and  a  weak  one,  though  inde- 
finable, is  infinite.  ...  A  close  review  of 
the  play  will  show  that  Hamlet  is  strong, 
not  weak, —  that  the  basis  of  his  character 
is  strength,  illimitable  strength.  There 
is  not  an  act  or  an  utterance  of  his,  from 
first  to  last,  which  is  not  a  manifestation 
of  power.  Slow,  cautious,  capricious,  he 
1 8 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


may  sometimes  be,  or  seem  to  be;  but  al- 
ways strong,  always  large-souled,  always 
resistless." 

It  might  have  been  expected  that  in  his 
interpretation  of  the  tragedy  the  eloquent 
writer  whose  words  we  have  just  quoted 
should  have  thrown  added  light  on  the 
disputed  question  of  Hamlet's  delay;  but 
this  is  not  the  case.  Like  other  critics, 
great  and  small,  when  he  undertakes  to 
explain  the  significance  of  the  soliloquies, 
he  leaves  the  reader  in  uncertainty  as  to 
the  precise  nature  of  Hamlet's  internal 
struggle. 

The  fifth  and  last  of  the  typical  theor- 
ies demanding  special  consideration,  ap- 
proaches the  problem  from  a  viewpoint 
directly  antithetical  to  that  assumed  in  all 
the  theories  thus  far  discussed,  and,  in- 
stead of  attributing  Hamlet's  delay  to  sub- 
jective causes,  ascribes  it  wholly  to  causes 
external.  This  revolutionary  hypothesis, 
which  has  received  the  endorsement  of 
19 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

several  Shakespearian  scholars  of  distinc- 
tion, dates  back  to  about  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  and  is  fitly  named,  after 
Its  German  authors,  the  Klein-Werder 
theory. 

Referring  to  the  assumption  of  all  the 
leading  critics,  with  Goethe  at  their  head, 
that  Hamlet's  hesitation  is  due  to  some  in- 
ternal cause,  Werder  writes : 

"  For  my  own  part  I  must  flatly  dissent 
from  this  conclusion.  Let  me  ask,  first 
of  all,  would  Hamlet  have  dared  to  act 
as  these  critics  almost  unanirnously  demand 
that  he  should  have  done  ?  Can  Hamlet, 
or  can  he  not,  so  act?  It  is  certainly  a 
pertinent  question.  I  maintain  that  he 
could  not  have  thus  acted,  and  for  purely 
objective  reasons.  The  facts  of  the  case, 
the  force  of  all  the  circumstances,  the  very 
nature  of  his  task,  directly  forbid  it.  .  .  . 
SVhat  is  Hamlet  to  do?  What  is  his  actual 
task?  A  sharply  defined  duty,  but  a  very 
different  one  from  that  which  the  critics 
20 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


have  imposed  upon  him.  It  is  not  to 
crush  the  King  at  once  —  he  could  commit 
no  greater  blunder  —  but  to  bring  him  to 
confession,  to  unmask  and  convict  him. 
That  is  Hamlet's  task,  his  first,  nearest, 
inevitable  duty." 

The  Kleln-Werder  theory,  though  in 
some  important  respects  it  is  in  closer  har- 
mony with  the  larger  movement  of  the 
play  than  any  earlier  view,  is  wholly  at 
variance  with  the  text  where  it  touches 
the  vital  question  of  Hamlet's  internal 
struggle.  To  one  disregarding  the  ob- 
vious import  of  the  soliloquies,  Werder's 
hypothesis  might  seem  plausible ;  but  it  an- 
swers the  baffling  question  by  answering  it 
away!  Werder's  solution  of  the  problem 
resembles  the  solution  of  a  perplexing  puz- 
zle :  the  puzzle  being  deciphered,  the  mys- 
tery is  gone.  This  writer's  most  serious 
error,  as  will  later  be  made  evident,  lies 
in  his  failure  to  distinguish  between  what 
may  be   termed  Hamlet's   absolute   duty 

21 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

and  the  special  duty  imposed  by  the  Ghost. 
But  not  to  enter,  at  this  point,  into  a  dis- 
cussion which  will  engage  us  at  consider- 
able length  in  subsequent  pages,  we  will 
cite  two  objections  among  many  formu- 
lated by  Bradley, —  either  of  which,  we 
believe,  is  sufficiently  potent  to  demolish 
the  whole  glittering  structure  of  the  Klein- 
Werder  theory:  (i)  "From  beginning 
to  end  of  the  play,  Hamlet  never  makes 
the  slightest  reference  to  any  external  dif- 
ficulty." (2)  "Not  only  does  Hamlet 
fail  to  allude  to  such  difficulties,  but  he  al- 
ways assumes  that  he  can  obey  the  Ghost, 
and  he  once  asserts  this  in  so  many  words 
(*  Sith  I  have  cause  and  will  and  strength 
and  means  To  do't,'  IV.  iv.  45)."— To 
which  unanswerable  objections  it  is  super- 
fluous to  add  the  equally  effective  argu- 
ment of  Professor  Tolman,  that,  "  In  spite 
of  an  amount  of  soliloquy  which  is  unex- 
ampled in  dramatic  literature,  this  theory 
22 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


is  obliged  to  assume  that  Hamlet  fails  to 
express  the  one  purpose  which  fills  his 
mind." 


23 


II 

In  the  province  of  interpretative  criti- 
cism, imaginative  insight  and  intuition  are 
at  best  but  aids  of  a  settled  science  which 
must  proceed  in  accordance  with  the  un- 
varying principles  of  an  impersonal  logic. 
The  terms  art  and  criticism  are,  in  a  sense, 
antithetical.  Art  is  **  creation  '* ;  criticism 
is  *'  discovery."  Literature  in  its  tran- 
scendent forms  is  an  organic  birth,  issuing 
from  the  throes  of  exalted  imagination. 
It  is  complete  and  absolute  —  not  less 
complex  and  perfect  in  its  internal  rela- 
tions than  the  mind  which  bodies  it  forth. 
Thus,  like  life  itself,  it  must  forever  baf- 
fle and  inspire,  inviting  the  curious  reason 
to  probe  its  deeper  meanings  and  to  deter- 
mine the  unifying  laws  of  its  structure. 
Criticism,  whether  analytic  or  synthetic, 
24 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

though  in  its  higher  operations  it  must 
needs  derive  its  potency  from  rapturous 
sources  akin  to  creative  genius,  is,  like  all 
othtr  science,  objective  in  method,  its 
mode  being  none  other  than  the  familiar 
one  of  induction  and  deduction. 

In  approaching  the  special  subject  be- 
fore us  we  may  therefore  assume  that, 
whatever  may  be  the  true  explanation  of 
Hamlet's  delay,  no  solution  of  the  problem 
derived  from  a  consecutive  study  of  the 
soliloquies  in  the  light  of  Shakespeare's 
dramatic  method,  can  be  accepted  as  the 
correct  solution,  unless  it  be  in  harmony 
with  conclusions  reached  by  J^ductive  in- 
ference in  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the 
general  design  of  the  play,  as  revealed  in 
its  leading  issues.  Thus,  from  the  stand- 
point of  interpretative  criticism,  the  ques- 
tion, "  What  Is  the  special  nature  of  Ham- 
let's internal  struggle  ?  "  is  involved  in  a 
larger  question: — "In  view  of  Hamlet's 
relation  to  the  total  dramatic  action,  what 
25 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

must  be  the  general  import  of  that 
struggle?  " 

To  begin,  then,  with  the  most  compre- 
hensive impressions  left  upon  the  mind 
by  the  total  action  of  the  drama,  it  may  be 
affirmed  that  there  are  two  main  conclu- 
sions in  which  modern  Shakespearian  au- 
thorities agree :  —  the  first,  that  in  the 
tragedy  of  Hamlet,  Shakespeare  presents 
the  human  situation  in  its  broadest  rela- 
tions, imaging  man  as  circumscribed  in  all 
his  actions  by  Divine  Providence ;  —  the 
second,  that  the  character  of  Hamlet,  the 
central  person  of  the  drama,  is  without 
doubt  the  most  nearly  universal  of  Shake- 
speare^s  master  creations;  that,  in  the 
many-sidedness  of  his  mind,  he  seems,  as 
it  were,  to  typify  the  human  race,  repre- 
senting an  epitome  of  man's  nature. 

Of  these  two  mutually  involving  con- 
ceptions, the  former  and  more  comprehen- 
sive,—  that  relating  to  the  general  design 
of  the  play, —  has  been  dwelt  upon  by  all 
26 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


the  leading  critics  from  Goethe  to  Brad- 
ley ;  while  the  latter  conception, —  that  re- 
lating to  the  character  of  the  Prince, — 
has  received  and  is  receiving  special  em- 
phasis from  Shakespearian  scholars  of  our 
own  day,  who,  however  they  may  differ 
as  to  the  cause  of  Hamlet's  inaction,  are 
in  perfect  agreement  as  to  the  univer- 
sality of  his  most  sovereign  intellect  and 
spirit. 

Whatever  the  point  of  view  from  which 
the  drama  is  regarded  by  recent  writers, 
this  idea  of  the  representative  nature  of 
the  Prince  is  somewhere  emphasized  and 
elucidated  in  their  discussions.  The  gen- 
eral tendency  of  present-day  criticism 
touching  the  question  of  Hamlet's  char- 
acter may  readily  be  discerned  by  a  cur- 
sory perusal  of  the  abundant  periodical 
literature  on  the  subject,  recorded  in 
"  Poole's  Index "  for  the  past  decade. 
This  tendency  is  well  shown  in  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  an  article  by  J.  Chur- 

27 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

ton  Collins,  in  The  Contemporary  Review 
(November,  1905): 

"  As  every  man,  according  to  Coleridge, 
IS  born  either  a  Platonist  or  an  Aristote- 
lian, so  there  is  no  human  being  in  whom 
some  of  the  characteristics  of  Hamlet  do 
not  exist.  .  .  .  Hamlet  is  not  so  much  an 
individual  as  humanity  individualized, 
not  so  much  man  in  integrity  as  man  in 
solution.  Probably  no  poet,  no  artist,  no 
philosopher,  has  ever  existed,  who  would 
not  recognize  a  kinsman  in  him,  and  who 
would  not  read  more  than  one  chapter  of 
his  own  most  secret  history  in  this  all-typi- 
cal delineation.  .  .  .  He  exhibits,  some- 
times by  turns  and  sometimes  simultane- 
ously, but  always  in  excess,  all  that  is  im- 
plied in  the  emotional  and  aesthetic,  and  all 
that  is  implied  in  the  reflective  and  philo- 
sophic temper.  .  .  .  Fatalist  and  sceptic, 
stoic  and  epicurean,  alike  claim  him  and 
have  reason  to  claim  him.  There  is  not 
a  phase  in  the  dread  never-ending  conflict 
28 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


between  destiny  and  human  will  and  be- 
tween the  law  In  man's  members  and  the 
law  that  Is  without,  which  has  not  its  sym- 
bol in  his  story  and  in  his  conduct.  .  .  . 
So  fluid  and  mobile  is  his  nature,  so  re- 
sponsive and  plastic  his  sympathies,  that 
he  is  not  simply  moulded,  but  trans- 
formed, by  what  for  the  moment  appeals 
to  him.  And  with  such  intensity  does  he 
enter  into  the  life  of  the  instant,  and  iden- 
tify himself  with  it,  that  what  in  other 
men  are  merely  moods,  become  in  him  lit- 
tle less  than  phases  of  existence.  He  thus 
appears  to  be  not  one  man  but  many,  pass- 
ing with  the  plasticity  of  his  creator's 
genius  into  sphere  after  sphere  of  intel- 
lectual and  emotional  activity,  the  poet 
lavishing  on  him  in  each  of  these  trans- 
formations the  choicest  treasures  of  his 
wit,  his  wisdom,  and  his  eloquence." 

To  this  elaborate  analysis  of  Hamlet's 
mind  and  personality,  may  be  added  the 
final    conclusions    of    a    recent   American 
29 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

writer,  Walter  Libby,  who,  in  an  article 
entitled  "  The  Evolution  of  Hamlet  Criti- 
cism," published  in  Poet-Lore  ( 1904),  rec- 
ognizing the  Shakespearian  universality  of 
Hamlet's  character,  finds  refuge  for  baf- 
fled criticism  in  the  generalizations  of  "  a 
view  anticipated  by  Coleridge,  .  .  .  that 
Hamlet  is  the  typical  man  of  genius." 
*'  The  question  of  Hamlet's  character,"  he 
observes,  "  has  acquired  its  great  impor- 
tance because  one  has  divined  here  not 
merely  the  development  of  an  individual, 
but  the  evolution  of  the  race." 

That  the  conception  of  Hamlet  so 
strongly  emphasized  by  recent  writers  con- 
forms in  essential  respects  to  the  impres- 
sion invariably  left  upon  the  imagination 
by  an  uninterrupted  perusal  of  the  play,  is 
evidenced  by  numerous  ingenious  theories 
of  an  earlier  date,  which  have  sought  to 
convert  the  Prince  of  Denmark  into  the 
embodiment  of  such  comprehensive  ab- 
stractions as  Paganism,  Protestantism, 
30 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


Germany,  the  World,  in  each  of  which 
theories  the  later  view  is  either  implied  or 
foreshadowed. 

But  the  breadth  of  Shakespeare's  design 
in  the  creation  of  the  character  of  Hamlet 
is  subtly  intimated  in  the  text  It  is  no 
accident,  assuredly,  but  a  consideration  of 
vital  artistic  significance,  that  the  author 
has  introduced  into  this  drama  (Act  II, 
Scene  II),  and  has  put  into  Hamlet's  own 
mouth,  the  impressive  words  of  that  con- 
summate prose  description  of  ideal  man, 
which,  as  a  characterization  of  the  human 
type,  is  unparalleled  in  literature: 

**  What  a  piece  of  work  is  man !  How 
noble  in  reason  I  how  infinite  in  faculty  I  in 
form  and  moving,  how  express  and  admi- 
rable 1  in  action,  how  like  an  angel !  in  ap- 
prehension, how  like  a  god  I  the  beauty  of 
the  world  I  the  paragon  of  animals  1  '* 

Who,  with  judgment  unwarped  by  mad- 
ness theories,  on  reading  these  words  in 
the  responsive  mood  of  natural  criticism, 

31 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

can  fail  to  associate  them  with  the  impres- 
sion left  on  the  mind  by  the  character  and 
conduct  of  Hamlet  himself? 

But  Shakespeare  is  even  more  explicit. 
Lest  the  suggestive  import  of  the  passage 
should  be  lost  on  his  audience  or  reader, 
in  the  very  next  scene  (Act  III,  Scene  I) 
he  has  placed  upon  the  usually  uneloquent 
lips  of  Ophelia  the  following  lines  descrip- 
tive of  the  Prince: 

"Oh,  what  a  noble  mind  is  here  overthrown! 
The   courtier's,    scholar's,    soldier's,    eye,   tongue, 

sword; 
The  expectancy  and  rose  of  the  fair  state, 
The  glass  of  fashion,  and  the  mould  of  form. 
The  observ'd  of  all  observers,  quite,  quite  down!  " 

- — >  which  lines  are  followed  a  moment  later 
by  another  reference  to  Hamlet's  "  noble 
and  most  sovereign  reason,"  and,  again,  to 
his  "  unmatched  form  and  feature." — 
Could  anything  in  dramatic  art  be  more 
clearly  indicative  of  the  author's  ideal  mo- 

32 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


tive  In  the  creation  of  the  central  character 
of  this  tragedy? 

Not  less  significant  is  the  Introduction 
Into  the  next  scene  (Act  III,  Scene  II),  of 
that  other  passage  of  memorable  prose.  In 
which  Shakespeare,  through  the  medium 
of  Hamlet,  defines,  once  for  all.  In  com- 
prehensive phrase,  the  supreme  function  of 
dramatic  art:  —  **  To  hold,  as  'twere,  the 
mirror  up  to  nature;  to  show  virtue  her 
own  feature,  scorn  her  own  Image,  and  the 
very  age  and  body  of  the  time  his  form  and 
pressure."- —  In  this,  the  first  of  his  great 
philosophic  tragedies,  Shakespeare  exhib- 
its life  In  Its  ultimate  and  eternal  relations; 
^— he  holds  the  mirror  up  to  universal 
nature,  representing  man  as  conditioned 
and  circumscribed  In  all  his  actions  by  an 
omniscient  Providence,  now  promoting  and 
now  thwarting  human  will,  but  ever  inti- 
mating the  absolute  Good.  "     \ 

The  relative  breadth  of  the  poet's  dc^'       ) 

33  ^/^ 


fi 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

sign  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that 
the  tragedy  of  Hamlet  k  unique  flmanig 
Shakespearian '  dfomao  in  that '  ifc  involves 
accident  as  a  fundamental  consideration  of 
the  theme.  This  is  clearly  shown  (in  ac- 
cordance with  Shakespeare's  characteristic 
method  of  balance  and  contrast)  by 
the  antithetical  nature  and  conspicuous 
setting  of  the  two  most  obvious  examples 
of  accident,  from  which  such  mighty  con- 
sequences flow,  and  which,  indeed,  consti- 
tute the  very  turning-points  of  the  dra- 
matic action.  We  refer,  of  course,  on  the 
one  hand,  to  Hamlet's  disastrous  sword- 
thrust  through  the  arras,  involving  the  un- 
intended slaughter  of  Polonius;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  his  miraculous  and  for- 
tunate venture  of  meeting  and  boarding  the 
pirate  ship,  whereby  he  is  providentially 
brought  back  to  Denmark,  to  consum- 
mate his  appointed  task.  And  Shake- 
speare does  not  leave  us  in  any  doubt 
regarding  the  special  significance  of  these 
34 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


accidents,  as  witness  Hamlet's  own  after- 
generalizations  in  reference  to  each  fate- 
ful event.  Toward  the  end  of  the  scene 
which  opens  with  the  accidental  killing  of 
Polonius,  and  in  which  the  Prince  of  Den- 
mark, striving  for  his  mother's  salvation, 
wrings  her  heart  with  bitter  reproach, 
Hamlet,  in  a  prophetic  moment  of  spirit- 
ual exaltation,  utters  the  following  words : 

"Once  more,  good  night; 
And  when  you  are  desirous  to  be  blest, 
I'll  blessing  beg  of  you. —  For  this  same  lord, 

^Pointing  to  Polonius, 
I  do  repent;  but  heaven  hath  pleas'd  it  so. 
To  punish  me  with  this  and  this  with  me, 
That  I  must  be  their  scourge  and  minister." 

Hamlet  discerns  in  the  defeat  of  his  in- 
tended purpose  a  special  revelation  of 
providential  design,  according  to  which 
his  soul,  through  the  chastisement  of  re- 
morse, is  purged  and  prepared  for  its  ap- 
pointed mission. 

In  like  manner  and  with  equal  clearness 

35 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

has  Shakespeare  indicated,  by  means  of 
impressive  generalizations  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Hamlet,  the  artistic  motive  in 
the  case  of  the  second  obvious  instance  of 
accident.  Referring  to  his  miraculous  es- 
cape from  the  snares  of  royal  knavery,  the 
Prince,  upon  his  return  to  Denmark,  in  his 
disclosures  to  Horatio,  preludes  the  ac- 
count of  his  daring  venture,  with  the  re- 
flection: 

"  Our  indiscretion  sometimes  serves  us  well 
W^hen  our  deep  plots  do  fail;    and  that  should 

teach  us 
There's  a  divinity  that  shapes  our  ends, 
Rough-hew  them  how  we  will." 

To  which  words,  Horatio,  with  an  abso- 
lute finality  of  phrase  so  exceptional  with 
that  reticent  character  as  to  arrest  atten- 
tion, responds :     "  That  is  most  certain.*' 

"  There's  a  dwinity  that  shapes  our  ends!  " 

Perhaps  no  other  line  ever  penned  by 
Shakespeare  has  found  a  more  universal 

36 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


response  in  the  souls  of  men.  The  sub- 
lime words  have  become  hackneyed  by  fa- 
miliar repetition.  But  the  special  connec- 
tion in  which  they  were  first  uttered,  by 
the  Prince  of  Denmark,  is  rarely  consid- 
ered. Their  philosophic  import  in  the 
tragedy  of  Hamlet^  as  throwing  light  upon 
the  vital  Implications  of  accident,  is  but 
vaguely  apprehended  by  the  average 
reader.  Certain  it  is,  however,  that  no 
other  single  generalization  of  the  play  car- 
ries with  it  a  more  far-reaching  suggestive- 
ness  than  this  utterance  of  Hamlet;  no 
one  line  indicates  more  clearly  the  scope 
of  the  author's  dramatic  design. 

Numerous  other  occurrences  in  the  play 
serve  to  Illustrate  the  operation  of  Divine 
Will  through  accident.  Not  to  attempt 
to  exhaust  the  theme,  only  two  minor  in- 
stances will  here  be  cited  to  show  that  the 
conception  of  Providence  revealing  itself 
in  modes  of  chance  or  opportunity,  is  vital 
to  the  whole  design.     The  first  of  these 

37 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

subordinate  examples  is  the  fortuitous 
coming  of  the  "  players ''  to  Elsinore;  the 
second,  is  the  unexpected  summoning  of 
Hamlet  to  his  mother's  chamber,  after  the 
ominous  "  play-scene."  Witness  what 
mighty  spiritual  purposes  these  otherwise 
trivial  occurrences  are  made  to  serve 
through  the  sovereign  reason  of  the 
Prince.  In  the  former  instance  Hamlet 
becomes  the  Heaven-appointed  scourge  of 
one  human  soul;  in  the  latter.  Heaven's 
"  scourge  and  minister  "  unto  another. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the 
conception  of  Omniscient  Providence  con- 
trolling the  destinies  of  men  is  paramount 
in  the  tragedy  of  Hamlet,  and  involves, 
therefore,  directly  or  indirectly,  all  is- 
sues of  the  drama.  In  the  other  trage- 
dies,—  Macbeth,  for  example,  to  which 
Hamlet  bears  a  close  kinship, —  the  oper- 
ations of  Providence  are  less  obviously  In- 
dicated: they  constitute,  at  best,  but  the 
shadowy  and  awful  background  of  the  cen- 

38 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


tral  humaa  scene ;  the  supernatural  action 
is  purposely  obscured,  and  serves  to  throw 
the  human  action  into  relief.  But  it  is 
otherwise  with  the  tragedy  of  Hamlet,  in 
which  the  operations  of  Providence  are  so 
expressly  indicated  —  brought  to  the  fore- 
ground and  thrust  on  the  view  in  such  con- 
crete detail  —  that  the  larger  philosophic 
conception  of  Divine  Will  shaping  the  af- 
fairs of  men  might  well  be  regarded  as 
the  principal  theme,  the  all-absorbing  mo- 
tive of  the  play,  were  it  not  for  the  en- 
grossing fascination  of  the  central  tragic 
figure,  in  whom  the  convergent  lines  of 
dramatic  interest  meet. 

In  the  transcendent  mystery  of  prov- 
idential design  involving  both  the  objective 
and  the  subjective  world,  lies  the  only  true 
enigma  of  Hamlet's  delay.  Not  only  is 
the  Prince  thwarted  from  without  by  the 
inscrutable  workings  of  Providence:  he 
is  equally  thwarted  from  within,  Ham- 
let's mystery  is,  thus,  our  mystery ;  his  uni- 
39 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

verse,  the  faithful  reflex  of  our  own.  To 
attempt,  therefore,  in  an  absolute  sense,  to 
go  back  of  Hamlet's  mystery,  or  the  mys- 
tery of  Hamlet's  world,  and  "pluck  it 
out,"  so  to  speak,  were  to  attempt  not 
merely  to  go  back  of  Shakespeare's  art, 
but  to  go  back  of  Shakespeare.  Enough 
that  the  poet  has  left  the  secret  of  God's 
infinite  design  —  a  mystery. 

Only  by  clearly  distinguishing  between 
the  subject  and  the  subject-matter  of  the 
play,  between  the  enigmatic  mystery  in- 
herent in  the  theme  and  the  legitimate 
problem  which  presents  itself  in  the  dra- 
matic unfolding  of  the  theme,  shall  we  be 
able  to  differentiate  with  certainty  the 
known  from  the  unknown  quantities  which 
the  problem  involves. 

From  the  generalization  which  we 
have  reached  regarding  the  universality  of 
Hamlet's  nature,  what  inference  must  be 
drawn?  In  view  of  the  breadth  of  the 
author's  design  in  this  tragedy  and  the  or- 
40 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


ganic  relation  of  the  central  person  to  that 
design,  one  conclusion  is  unavoidable: 
that  since  Hamlet,  in  the  many-sidedness 
of  his  character,  may  be  said  to  typify  man- 
kind, representing,  as  it  were,  the  univer- 
sal human,  his  internal  struggle  must  be 
typical  and  representative.  Whatever 
may  be  the  peculiar  dramatic  implications 
of  that  struggle,  however  rigidly  Shake- 
speare may  have  found  his  art  restricted  by 
the  crude  materials  of  his  plot,  it  is  certain 
that  the  vital  conflict  revealed  In  Hamlet's 
soliloquies  is  but  the  image  of  a  conflict 
silently  waging  in  every  human  soul. 

But  Hamlet,  as  protagonist  of  this 
drama,  is  no  merely  passive  instrument  of 
fate :  he  is  an  active  moral  agent.  Moral- 
ity, in  the  broadest  and  deepest  sense,  is 
the  basic  element  of  his  character.  Every 
duty  is  holy  to  him  —  duty  to  father,  to 
mother,  to  man,  to  God.  Hamlet's  re- 
ligious earnestness  of  nature  combines  with 
filial  piety,  intense  social  affections,  and 
41 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

austere  virtue,  to  form  a  character  fitly 
representing  ideal  manhood, —  a  character 
not  less  unwavering  in  its  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  loyalty  and  self-sacrifice,  than 
its  antithesis,  the  character  of  Macbeth,  is 
absolute  in  its  abandonment  to  the  oppo- 
site principles  of  selfishness  and  Heaven- 
defying  ambition. 

A  suggestive  comparison  may  be  drawn 
between  the  tragedies,  Macbeth  and  Ham- 
let, which  present  a  most  striking  contrast: 
not,  indeed,  in  motive, —  for  they  bear  a 
remarkably  close  ethical  kinship,  being,  as 
It  were,  dramatic  sermons  on  the  same 
grand  and  universal  theme, —  but  in  the 
point  of  view  from  which  the  theme  is  con- 
templated, Hamlet  being  the  positive  and 
Macbeth  the  negative  presentation  of  the 
same  vast  thesis.  It  Is  not  so  much  In  na- 
tive mental  powers  as  In  moral  attitude 
that  the  central  tragic  persons,  Macbeth 
and  Hamlet,  differ.  The  two  characters 
are  similarly  endowed  with  certain  gen- 
42 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


eral  capacities  of  Intellect  and  imagination, 
the  philosophic  reason  and  the  poetic  ap- 
prehension, which  enable  them  to  discern 
at  all  times  "  the  moral  properties  and 
scope  of  things,"  and  to  prevision  the 
even-handed  justice  which  the  Divine 
Judge  shall  mete  out  to  human  souls  in 
this  world  or  in  the  world  to  come.  But 
in  Hamlet's  nature  these  powers  are  rooted 
in  the  deep  soil  of  a  profoundly  religious 
temperament;  —  not  so  with  Macbeth, 
whose  intellectual  nature  countervails  the 
spiritual.  Macbeth  finds  his  perfect  foil 
in  Macduff;  Hamlet,  in  Claudius.  In  the 
subtle  artistic  contrast  between  the  Prince 
of  Denmark  and  his  villainous  uncle,  the 
critic  may  discover  the  key  to  Hamlet's 
true  character.  In  the  light  of  that  con- 
trast, how  monstrous,  how  shallow,  how 
absurd,  any  description  of  Hamlet's  tem- 
perament which  would  attribute  to  mor- 
bid or  weakling  causes  that  cloud-hung  and 
ominous  melancholy  so  opposite  to  the  dis- 

43 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

sembling  King's  all-sanguine  mood.  In 
the  gathered  clouds  of  that  melancholy 
lurks  the  lightning  of  a  terrible  retribu- 
tion,—  the  bolts  which  shall  blast  and  pu- 
rify the  "  rotten  "  state  of  Denmark.  The 
overwhelming  mood  which  gives  pause  to 
every  resolution  and  retards  every  action, 
is  the  index  and  proof  of  Hamlet's  uni- 
versality of  soul  in  the  presence  of  infinite 
and  eternal  forces  which  can  neither  be  un- 
derstood nor  controlled  by  man.  Hamlet 
IS  struggling  at  every  moment,  with  al- 
most superhuman  faculties,  to  comprehend 
the  mystery  upon  which  every  slightest 
deed  must  depend  for  its  moral  efficacy. 

And  what  inference  must  be  drawn  from 
the  emphasis  laid  throughout  the  play  upon 
the  profound  morality  of  Hamlet, —  em- 
phasis so  obvious  as  to  make  the  hero  ap- 
pear at  times  in  a  haloed  light,  as  the  em- 
bodiment of  all  the  spiritual  forces  of 
man, —  at  other  times  almost  as  a  reli- 
gious agent?  One  conclusion  certainly 
44 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


can  not  be  amiss :  Hamlet's  struggle,  what- 
ever Its  special  nature,  is,  in  the  broadest 
sense,  a  moral  struggle. 


45 


Ill 

Why  have  critics  failed  to  discover  the 
true  nature  of  Hamlet's  subjective  expe- 
rience? No  such  baffling  problem  pre- 
sents itself  in  the  other  great  tragedies, — 
Macbeth,  Lear,  and  Othello, —  concern- 
ing the  underlying  motives  of  which 
Shakespearian  scholars  are  in  substantial 
agreement.  The  design  of  each  of  these 
tragedies, —  nay,  of  every  other  play  of 
Shakespeare, —  is  relatively  obvious :  which 
fact  should  go  to  show  that  in  the  case  of 
the  exceptional  drama  the  fault  is  not 
with  Shakespeare,  as  some  have  presumed 
to  suggest,  but  with  the  critics,  who,  when 
approaching  the  study  of  Hamlet,  have 
seemed  to  waver  in  their  faith  in  the  uni- 
form consistency  of  Shakespeare's  dra- 
matic    method.      Shakespeare's     method 

46 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

never  varies  in  its  essential  features.  The 
principles  of  dramatic  art  which  clearly  re- 
veal his  underlying  purpose  in  Macbeth, 
Lear,  and  Othello,  are  precisely  the  same 
as  those  by  which  the  theme  of  Hamlet  is 
suggested. —  And  what  are  the  uniform 
principles  of  art  in  accordance  with  which 
Shakespeare's  tragedies  are  constructed? 
In  each  of  the  greater  tragedies,  where 
the  interest  is  profoundly  psychological, 
supreme  importance  attaches  to  the  so- 
liloquies; for  it  is  only  by  the  light  they 
shed  upon  the  action  of  the  drama  that  its 
deeper  motive  may  be  truly  discerned. 
But  Shakespeare's  art,  strictly  adhering 
to  the  avowed  purpose  of  holding  the  mir- 
ror up  to  nature,  like  nature,  exhibits  its 
organic  laws  indirectly,  and  only  to  the 
comprehensive  vision  of  scientific  method. 
The  direct  statement  of  his  theme,  in  so 
many  words,  if  this,  indeed,  were  within 
the  possibility  of  language,  is  precluded 
by  the  very  nature  of  his  task.     But  the 

47 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

design  is  perfect,  and  the  soliloquies,  and 
the  generalizations  which  they  embody, 
reveal  the  symmetry  of  that  design  by 
clearly  distinguishing  the  several  stages  of 
the  psychic  movement.  Of  special  signifi- 
cance in  the  light  they  shed  upon  the 
theme  are  these  generalizations  when  they 
mark  the  close  of  scenes  and  acts,  where 
their  cumulative  effect  is  most  pronounced, 
and  where  they  may  be  said  to  serve  as 
obvious  sign-boards  indicating  the  trend 
of  the  dramatic  action.  And  what  is  true 
of  the  generalizations  of  soliloquy  applies 
with  equal  force  to  all  important  speeches 
which  disclose  the  inmost  reflections  of  the 
central  character. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  Shakespeare's  method. 
Such  are  the  uniform  rules  of  his  art  as 
it  relates  to  the  conspicuous  setting-forth 
of  his  theme.  The  selfsame  principles 
which  underlie  the  construction  of  Shake- 
speare's other  great  tragedies  find  consum- 
mate illustration  in  the  play  of  Hamlet,  in 

48 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


which  drama  the  soliloquies  are  arranged 
in  just  gradation,  exhibiting  clearly, 
and  stage  by  stage,  the  progress  of  the 
moral  struggle,  the  turning-point  being  at 
the  middle  of  the  play,  while  the  divisions 
of  scene  and  act  are  almost  invariably 
marked  by  significant  generalizations. 

The  failure  of  critics  to  differentiate 
the  several  stages  of  Hamlet's  moral  de- 
velopment has  arisen  not  from  any  devia- 
tion in  dramatic  method  on  Shakespeare's 
part,  but  from  a  difficulty  inherent  in  the 
theme.  In  each  of  the  other  great  trag- 
edies is  represented  the  deterioration  or 
utter  ruin  of  a  soul.  The  tragedy  of 
Hamlet  exhibits  the  mind  of  man  in  its 
upward  struggle.  This  moral  transfor- 
mation is  not  an  evolution  from  an  ignoble 
to  a  noble  state,  from  bad  to  good,  but 
rather  a  development  from  immature  to 
mature  manhood,  a  mental  and  spiritual 
ripening.  It  is  owing  to  the  occult  and 
subtle  nature  of  Hamlet's  transformation 

49 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

that  the  successive  stages  of  his  moral 
progress  have  not  been  clearly  discerned. 
With  the  view  of  determining  the  cen- 
tral motive  of  the  tragedy,  let  us  now 
examine,  in  the  light  of  Shakespeare's 
dramatic  method,  the  latter  half  of  the 
fateful  scene  (Act  I,  Scene  V)  In  which 
Hamlet,  on  hearing  from  his  father's 
ghost  the  harrowing  disclosure  of  his 
uncle's  crime.  Instantly  commits  himself  to 
vengeance,  and  in  which  the  Initial  stages 
of  his  moral  struggle  are  presented.  The 
Ghost  withdraws,  waving  sorrowful  fare- 
well: 

"Adieu,  adieu!    Hamlet,  remember  me." 

The  Ghost  vanishes.  Hamlet,  his  heart 
wrung  with  anguish,  his  mind  distraught 
by  powerful  conflicting  emotions,  cries: 

"Remember  thee! 
Ay,  thou  poor  ghost,  while  memory  holds  a  seat 
In  this  distracted  globe.    Remember  thee! 
Yea,  from  the  table  of  my  memory 

50 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


I'll  wipe  away  all  trivial  fond  records, 
All  saws  of  books,  all  forms,  all  pressures  past, 
That  youth  and  observation  copied  there, 
And  thy  commandment  all  alone  shall  live 
Within  the  book  and  volume  of  my  brain, 
Unmixed  with  baser  matter ;  yes,  by  heaven ! " 

The  action  advances.  Horatio  and  Mar- 
cellus  rush  in.  Hamlet  indulges  in  "  wild 
and  whirling  words/' — that  is,  in  whirl- 
ing words  of  irony  uttered  with  intent 
to  obscure  his  dread  secret,  in  stress  of 
tragic  emotion  unintelligible  to  his  ques- 
tioners. He  swears  his  friends  to  secrecy, 
and  the  act  ends.  But  with  what  signifi- 
cant words  ?  Not,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected by  the  reader, —  not  with  a  vehe- 
ment renewal,  on  Hamlet's  part,  of  the 
passionate  resolve  already  formed.  Quite 
the  contrary.  The  duty  has  expanded  to 
unanticipated  proportions.  Pervaded  by  a 
tragic  sense  of  moral  responsibility,  Ham- 
let exclaims: 

"The  time  is  out  of  Joint;  —  O  cursed  spite, 
That  ever  I  was  born  to  set  it  right  I " 

51 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

In  this  moment  of  prophetic  illumina- 
tion it  is  evident  that  the  mandate  re- 
ceived from  the  Ghost  has  translated 
Itself  into  a  vast,  an  impersonal,  a  religious 
dutyl  Not  nicrely  is  Hamlet  to  kill  the 
King:  he  has  assumed  the  prodigious  task 
of  setting  aright  the  disjointed  time. 

But  his  father's  commandment  returns 
to  mind  with  renewed  intensity.  The 
larger  purpose  is  too  vague  and  shadowy 
to  avail  against  feelings  of  self-reproach 
arising  as  Hamlet  contemplates  the  sacred 
personal  duty  which  he  has  not  yet  dis- 
charged, and  which  outraged  nature  sum- 
mons him  to  perform.  He  reels  into  self- 
disgust.  He  accuses  himself  of  cowardice 
and  beastly  oblivion. —  But  the  more  he 
knows  and  the  more  he  thinks,  the  less  pos- 
itive becomes  the  assurance  that  he  is  not 
right  in  delaying  the  deed.  Not  impo- 
tence of  will,  nor  morbid  irresolution,  but 
the  inherent  moral  forces  of  his  nature, 
delay  his  course  until  at  last,  by  direct  in- 
52 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


terventlon  of  the  "  divinity  that  shapes  our 
ends,"  he  consummates  the  task  for  which 
all  his  life,  all  his  sorrow,  all  his  aspiration, 
have  prepared  him. 

Thus  by  implication  we  have  anticipated 
the  final  step  in  our  solution  of  the  special 
problem  presented  in  the  soliloquies.  It 
has  been  shown  that  Hamlet's  internal 
struggle  is,  in  the  broadest  sense,  a  moral 
struggle,  and  that,  as  such,  it  symbolizes 
a  universal  experience  of  the  race.  iWe 
are  now  prepared  for  the  final  inference: 
That  Hamlet's  subjective  conflict  repre- 
sents the  prof oundest  and  subtlest  of  all 
struggles:  —  the  conflict  forever  waging 
in  the  human  soul  between  the  personal 
and  the  impersonal  motives  of  life, —  a 
conflict  not  between  clearly  defined  wrong 
and  clearly  defined  right,  but  rather  be- 
tween two  rights,  the  one  relative  and  the 
other  absolute. 

Our  theory,  therefore,  finds  its  symbol 
in  a  figure  the  very  reverse  of  that  pro- 

53 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

posed  by  Goethe.  Instead  of  a  beautiful, 
most  moral,  but  unheroic  nature,  sinking 
beneath  the  weight  of  a  duty  too  great 
for  it  to  bear,  we  see  in  Hamlet  a  mighty 
soul  which,  far  from  sinking,  rises  in  stat- 
ure and  in  strength  beneath  an  ever-in- 
creasing burden.  Shakespeare,  instead  of 
showing  the  effect  of  "  a  great  deed  laid 
upon  a  soul  unequal  to  the  performance 
of  it,''  has  shown  a  limited  deed  of  ques- 
tionable expediency  when  considered  in  its 
absolute  and  eternal  bearings,  laid  upon  a 
soul  too  great  for  its  performance  as  an 
unrelated  obligation  of  mere  personal 
revenge. 

This  solution  of  the  problem  which, 
baffling  Hamlet,  has  baffled  all  the  critics, 
is  the  only  solution  which  is  in  harmony 
with  every  scene  and  every  syllable  of  the 
play,  and  this  solution  alone  affords  an 
adequate  and  truly  psychological  explana- 
tion of  the  tragedy. 

In  the  comprehensive  monologue,  "  To 
54 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


be  or  not  to  be/'  which  appears  in  the 
third  act,  the  artistic  center  of  the  play, 
may  be  discerned  the  profounder  impli- 
cations of  Hamlet's  moral  struggle  as 
typifying  a  universal  human  experience. 
Here  only,  in  the  drama,  does  Shake- 
speare present  the  thwarting  problem  in 
its  wider  ethical  bearings.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  in  this  soliloquy  the  lesser 
question  of  vengeance  is  for  the  time  for- 
gotten, or,  more  truly  speaking,  merged 
and  lost  in  the  greater  question  of  the  im- 
minence of  divine  law, —  And  what  are  the 
larger  connotations  of  the  tragedy,  dis- 
coverable in  Hamlet's  speculative  thoughts 
in  this  monologue?  Here,  at  the  calm 
tidal  center  of  the  drama,  drop  the  plum- 
met of  exploring  criticism  to  its  profound- 
est  depths.  "  To  be  or  not  to  be,  that  is 
the  question."  That  is,  indeed,  the  ulti- 
mate question  of  man,  involving  all  other 
questions  which  arise  from  the  conflict  be- 
tween the  finite  and  the  eternal  issues  of 
55 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

life.  And  what  is  Hamlet's  answer  to 
the  all-comprehensive  inquiry?  Death,  to 
the  weary  and  suffering  spirit, —  death  as 
the  dreamless  end  of  all, — "  were  a  con- 
summation devoutly  to  be  wished."  But 
man,  through  the  dread  of  something  after 
death,  shrinks  from  suicide.  Yet  death 
shall  come  to  all ! — Man  yearns  for  release 
from  the  ills  of  life,  but  he  dare  not  pre- 
determine the  date  of  that  release ;  he  dare 
not  forestall  the  edict  of  an  inscrutable 
destiny  to  consummate  his  devout  desire. 
He  must  endure  the  burden  of  earthly  ex- 
istence until,  at  the  appointed  hour. 
Heaven  fulfils  his  wish  without  his  own 
contriving. —  What,  now,  are  the  implica- 
tions of  this  mighty  human  paradox  as  it 
touches  the  subordinate  question  of  Ham- 
let's delay  in  executing  vengeance  upon  his 
uncle?  *^  To  he  or  not  to  be'':  This, 
assuredly,  is  no  question  of  the  killing  of 
a  murderous  king  I  But  the  same  "  dread 
of  something  after  death,"  which  "  puz- 

56 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


zles  the  will,  and  makes  us  rather  bear 
thV*iIls  we  have  than  fly  to  others  that  we 
know  not  of,"^ — this  same  inexplicable 
fear,  which  refrains  the  hand  from  suicide, 
operates  obscurely  as  a  deterring  influence 
in  all  his  reasonings  concerning  the  act 
of  mortal  retribution  to  which  Hamlet  is 
impelled  by  every  honorable  instinct  of 
blood.  The  divine  authority  which  fore- 
warns against  **  self-slaughter,"  admon- 
ishes no  less  against  revenge.  "  Vengeance 
is  mine;  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord." 
"  Thou  shalt  not  kill."  Eternal  issues 
are  at  stake  for  both  the  slayer  and  the 
slain.  Thus  we  see  that  the  ultimate 
moral  implication  of  the  question,  "  Why 
not  end  one's  own  life  by  suicide?"  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  question,  "  Why 
not  kill  the  King?"  and  that  the  self -ac- 
cusation of  cowardice  involved  in  the 
gloomy  generalization,  "  Thus  conscience 
dotft  make  cowards  of  us  all,"  is,  in  the 
final  analysis,  identical  in  nature  with  the 

57 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

bitter  reproach  with  which  Hamlet  ar- 
raigns himself  for  having  so  long  deferred 
the  execution  of  his  father's  dread  com- 
mand. 

.We  ourselves,  on  reading  the  tragedy 
or  witnessing  its  performance,  are  baffled 
and  perplexed  by  the  obstinate  question- 
ings that  perplex  and  baffle  Hamlet,  giv- 
ing pause  to  passionate  action.  And  why? 
Because,  in  imagination,  we  find  ourselves, 
like  Hamlet,  confronted  by  an  inscrutable 
situation.  Because,  like  Hamlet,  we  re- 
spond with  instant  and  impetuous  deter- 
mination to  the  Ghost's  imploring  appeal, 
and  ourselves  assume  the  task  of  vengeance 
which  outraged  nature  summons  him  to 
perform,  and  to  which  his  will  is  spurred 
by  every  virtuous  instinct  of  loyalty,  of 
reverence,  and  of  filial  devotion.  Be- 
cause, like  Hamlet,  we  recognize  within 
our  own  nature  honorable  excitements 
both  of  reason  and  of  blood  impelling 
to   the   deed.     Because,   in  this   instance, 

58 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


vengeance  Is  idealized.  Retributive  justice 
cries  out  for  the  life  of  the  murderer,  the 
diabolical  horror  of  whose  crime  neither 
human  nor  divine  law  may  condone. 
Moreover,  the  act  of  vengeance  in  this 
case  implies  self-sacrifice,  involving  no 
immediate  personal  gain.  Being  once  re- 
moved from  self,  the  personal  motive  is 
obscured,  and  so  receives  a  seemingly- 
moral  sanction.  Weighed  in  the  merely- 
human  scale,  vengeance  were  justified:  it 
is  "  questionable  "  only  when  considered 
in  its  absolute  and  eternal  bearings. 

Some  writers  appear  to  assume  that 
Hamlet,  if  cross-examined  on  the  subject- 
matter  of  his  meditation,  could  have  been 
induced  to  answer  in  unequivocal  terms 
his  own  self-arraignment.  Such  an  as- 
sumption fails  to  recognize  the  true  func- 
tion of  soliloquy,  which  is  to  exhibit  the 
secret  operations  of  the  mind,  to  reveal 
the  speaker's  inmost  thought  and  feeling. 
Hamlet's  insistent  self-questioning  is  by 

59 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

no  means  merely  rhetorical:  it  implies  in- 
scrutable mystery.  Shakespeare  has  put 
into  soliloquy  all  that  Hamlet  knew  con- 
cerning the  cause  of  his  own  inaction ;  and 
to  assume  that  this  is  not  true,  were  not 
only  to  accuse  Shakespeare  of  departing 
from  his  usual  "honest  method";' — it 
were  to  ignore  the  fact  that  we  ourselves 
have  given  a  qualified  sanction  to  the  mo- 
tive of  vengeance,  and  that  for  Hamlet's 
delay  no  better  explanation  can  be  offered 
than  that  suggested  by  his  own  words  con- 
sidered in  the  light  of  the  total  dramatic 
action. 

The  mandate  of  the  Ghost  appeals  to  a 
natural  impulse  of  blood  rather  than  to 
a  sense  of  moral  duty,  and  quick  obedience 
to  that  mandate,  as  at  first  conceived  by 
Hamlet,  involves  no  other  motive  than 
that  of  personal  honor  and  filial  devotion. 
Yet  the  obligation  of  vengeance  is  none 
the  less  real  in  that  it  is  purely  personal. 
And,  under  the  irresistible  control  of 
60 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


Shakespeare's  art,  the  reader  is  com- 
pelled to  view  the  situation  through  the 
eyes  of  the  central  character.  He  Is  com- 
pelled In  imagination  to  assume  the  task 
of  vengeance,  to  enter  into  Hamlet's  moral 
struggle,  so  dimly  understood,  and  to  fol- 
low with  approval  his  reasonings  through- 
out the  play;  and  only  at  the  end  of  the 
last  act  does  he  come  deliberately  to  weigh 
the  passionate  motive  in  the  balance  of 
conscience. 

That  the  obligation  of  vengeance  sym- 
bolizes the  relative  or  personal  as  opposed 
to  the  absolute  duty,  may  be  inferred  not 
only  directly,  from  the  phraseology  em- 
ployed by  the  Ghost  and  by  Hamlet  in 
reference  to  the  passionate  motive,  but 
also  indirectly,  from  the  significant  fact 
that  in  Hamlet's  last  soliloquy  (Act  IV, 
Scene  IV),  in  which  he  declares  that  he 
is  "  exhorted "  to  the  deed  by  "  exam- 
ples gross  as  earth,"  the  only  example 
cited  is  that  afforded  by  the  conduct  of 
6i 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

Fortinbras, —  an  example  of  rash  and 
haff-bralned  adventure  in  the  name  of 
honor  merely,- —  an  "  example  gross  as 
earth,"  indeed,  of  action  prompted  by  am- 
bitious pride,  in  which  honor  is  farthest 
removed  from  moral  obligation.  This 
**  delicate  and  tender  prince,'*  the  heroic 
folly  of  whose  exploit  against  Poland 
Hamlet  contrasts  with  his  own  inaction, 
is,  be  it  remembered,  the  same  reckless 
youth,  "  of  unimproved  metal  hot  and 
full,"  who,  shortly  before,  had  "  sharked 
up  a  list  of  lawless  resolutes  "  for  some 
wrongful  enterprise  against  Denmark, 
and  all  without  the  sanction  or  even  the 
knowledge  of  his  "  bed-rid  '*  uncle,  king 
of  Norway,  who,  as  we  afterwards  learn 
from  Voltimand,  is  "  grieved  that  so  his 
sickness,  age,  and  impotence "  should 
have  been  thus  "  falsely  borne  in  hand  " 
by  his  nephew.  The  true  significance  of 
this  soliloquy  lies  in  its  negative  implica- 
tion. No  better  example  of  irrational 
62 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


action  springing  from  honorable  Instincts 
of  blood,  could  well  be  conceived,  than 
this  of  Fortlnbras,  cited  by  Hamlet  to  his 
own  disparagement  and  self-reproach. 


63 


IV 

The  theory  advanced  in  these  pages 
rests  squarely  upon  the  text,  and  derives 
its  chief  support  from  universally  ac- 
cepted data.  Act  by  act  and  scene  by 
scene,  in  the  light  of  this  theory,  we  may 
trace  the  progress  of  Hamlet's  moral  de- 
velopment, as  indicated  by  stages  of  a 
crucial  conflict  of  motives  relating  to  the 
question  of  vengeance,  and  by  correspond- 
ing phases  of  a  change  in  mental  attitude 
toward  life. 

The  successive  stages  of  Hamlet's  trans- 
forming struggle, — •■  of  the  conflict  of  mo- 
tives relating  to  the  question  of  vengeance, 
— are  presented,  respectively:  in  the  third 
soliloquy,  beginning,  "  O  all  you  host 
of  heaven!"  (Act  I,  Scene  Y) ;  in  the 
fourth  soliloquy,  "  O,  what  a  rogue  and 

64 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

peasant  slave  am  I ! "  (Act  II,  Scene 
II)  ;  in  the  soliloquy  beginning,  **  How  all 
occasions  do  inform  against  me  I"  (Act 
IV,  Scene  IV)  ;  and,  finally,  in  the  earnest 
question  put  to  Horatio  (Act  V,  Scene 
II)  :  "  Does  it  not,  thinks't  thee,  stand 
me  now  upon,"  etc.,  in  which  it  may  be 
seen  that  the  personal  motive  and  the  im- 
personal are  all  but  mutually  reconciled  in 
Hamlet's  consciousness. 

Hamlet's  change  in  mental  attitude  to- 
ward life  is  precisely  indicated  through 
the  medium  of  soliloquy  and  dialogue. 
His  attitude  of  mind  at  the  beginning  of 
the  play  —  before  he  has  learned  of  his 
father's  murder  and  assumed  the  task  of 
vengeance  —  is  revealed  in  the  opening 
lines  of  the  first  soliloquy  (Act  I,  Scene 
II)  ;  the  intermediate  phase  of  his  trans- 
formation is  represented  in  the  familiar 
monologue,  "  To  be  or  not  to  be,"  at  the 
middle  of  the  play  (Act  III,  Scene  I)  ; 
while  the  culminant  and  final  stage  of  his 

6s 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

development  is  marked  by  philosophic 
generalizations  addressed  to  Horatio  in 
the  closing  scene  (Act  V,  Scene  II). 

Hamlet's  crucial  and  transforming 
struggle,  while  it  originates  in  the  con- 
flict of  motives  consequent  upon  the  as- 
sumption of  the  task  of  vengeance,  and 
therefore  finds  its  first  expression  in  the 
soliloquy^  immediately  following  the  de- 
parture of  the  Ghost,  is  anticipated  and 
foreshadowed  in  the  opening  soliloquy 
(Act  I,  Scene  II),  which  not  only  serves 
to  exhibit  Hamlet's  mental  attitude  to- 
ward life,  but  IS  artfully  constructed  with 
reference  to  the  whole  complex  psycholog- 
ical design.  It  will  be  observed  that  this 
soliloquy  ("  O,  that  this  too  too  solid  flesh 
would  melt  I")  falls  naturally  into  three 
clearly  marked  divisions,  which  follow 
one  another  in  vital  sequence,  and  which 
comprise,  respectively,  the  first  four  lines 
(ending  with  the  word,  "self-slaugh- 
ter"), the  next  five  lines  (ending  with, 
66 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


"Possess  it  merely"),  and  the  rest  of 
the  soliloquy  (twenty-two  lines).  In  the 
first  of  these  divisions  Hamlet  is  repre- 
sented as  shrinking  with  spiritual  anguish 
from  the  tragic  burden  of  existence.  That 
this  aversion  to  life  does  not  arise  from 
morbid  causes  or  from  any  inherent  weak- 
ness in  Hamlet's  nature,  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  it  springs  from  profound  moral 
sensibility,  is  shown  in  the  second  division 
of  the  soliloquy,  where  the  Prince  con- 
templates with  abhorrence  and  revulsion 
the  sensual  grossness  of  the  world.  This 
feeling  of  abhorrence  and  revulsion  in- 
creases In  intensity  as  Hamlet,  passing  in 
thought  from  the  general  to  the  special, 
reflects  upon  his  mother's  **  incestuous " 
union.  Hamlet  chafes  under  the  restraint 
which  compels  him  to  silence  ("  But  break, 
my  heart,  for  I  must  hold  my  tongue  1  "), 
but  he  does  not,  as  yet,  recognize  within 
himself  the  imperative  obligation  which 
summons  man  to  the  responsibility  of  ac- 

67 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

tion.  Life  IS,  indeed,  a  duty,  but  as  yet 
it  is  a  duty  of  suffering  endurance  merely, 
and  not  of  performance.  Nevertheless,  in 
this  first  soliloquy  the  antithetical  ele- 
ments of  Hamlet's  crucial  struggle  are 
wig^iipfii'tf/y  suggested  by  the  fact  that  the 
all-environing  grossness  which  renders  life 
"  weary,  flat,  stale,  and  unprofitable,'*  and 
from  which  he  shrinks  with  moral  loath- 
ing, here  presents  itself  to  his  mind  in 
two  aspects,  the  one  impersonal  and  re- 
lating generally  to  the  world,  the  other 
personal  and  relating  to  his  mother  and 
his  uncle. 

In  Hamlet's  third  soliloquy  (Act  I, 
Scene  V)  we  discern  the  initial  stage  of 
his  moral  transformation,  the  first  signifi- 
cant change  in  moral  attitude  toward  life 
and  life's  obligations,  immediately  conse- 
quent upon  the  assumption  of  the  task  of 
vengeance.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
psychic  process  depicted  in  this  monologue 
is  just  the  reverse  of  that  portrayed  in 
68 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


the  first  soliloquy,  the  transition  in  thought 
being  from  the  particular  to  the  general, 
from  the  personal  to  the  impersonal.  We 
have  noted  in  an  earlier  paragraph  that, 
through  the  operation  of  subconscious,  ex- 
pansive forces  in  Hamlet's  nature,  the 
mandate  of  the  Ghost,  in  a  prophetic  mo- 
ment of  moral  illumination  at  the  end  of 
the  scene,  translates  itself  into  a  universal 
duty.  The  passionate  impulse  of  venge- 
ance yields  place  to  an  imperative  sense 
of  moral  obligation,  tragic  in  its  depth,  felt 
toward  the  world.  Radical  indeed  is  the 
change  already  wrought  in  Hamlet. 
Though  he  deplores  the  inexorable  condi- 
tions of  his  fate,  the  duty  of  life  is 
converted  from  an  obligation  of  mere 
passive  endurance  to  one  of  positive  per- 
formance.—  The  soliloquy  under  present 
discussion  exhibits  the  first  convulsive 
throes  of  Hamlet's  transforming  struggle. 
The  seed  of  discord  has  been  sown. 
Hamlet   is   self-committed  to  the   act  of 

69 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

vengeance.  But  the  dread  command- 
ment of  the  Ghost  not  only  imposes  on  his 
soul  the  personal  obligation  of  revenge 
("  If  thou  hast  nature  in  thee,  bear  it 
not!  "),  but  also  enjoins  a  moral  caution: 

"But,  howsoever  thou  pursuest  this  act, 
Taint  not  thy  mind,  nor  let  thy  soul  contrive 
Against  thy  mother  aught." 

The  subtle  import  of  this  qualifying  in- 
junction, as  revealing  the  true  nature  of 
Hamlet's  inward  struggle,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that,  while  in  the  earlier 
stages  of  that  struggle  he  assumes  that  the 
execution  of  his  revenge  implies  the  im- 
mediate killing  of  the  King,  he  at  no  time 
yields  so  far  to  the  sway  of  passionate 
impulse  as  to  constrain  his  will  to  instant 
action  by  the  binding  force  of  oath.  The 
oath  to  which  he  does  bind  himself  at  the 
close  of  this  soliloquy  commits  his  soul  not 
to  immediate  vengeance,  but  merely  to  the 
remembrance  of  the  Ghost's  command- 
70 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


ment.  No  allusion  is  made  to  the  im- 
petuous determination  already  formed. 
In  the  moments  of  release  from  the  ex- 
traordinary tension  to  which  Hamlet's 
mind  has  been  subjected  in  the  presence 
of  the  Ghost,  the  thought  of  vengeance, — 
so  absolute  is  the  sway  of  reactionary 
moral  forces  within  his  nature, —  is  in 
abeyance,  if  not  entirely  absent  from  con- 
sciousness. The  powers  of  volition  are 
partially  suspended.  Imagination  has 
free  play.  But  the  operations  of  reason, 
though  spasmodic,  and  though  revealed 
to  the  reader  only  in  broken  sentences, 
have  reference  to  his  mother's  degrada- 
tion and  his  uncle's  unspeakable  crime  and 
hypocrisy : 

"  O  most  pernicious  woman ! 
O  villain,  villain,  smiling,  damned  villain! 
My  tables, —  meet  it  is  I  set  it  down, 
That  one  may  smile,  and  smile,  and  be  a  villain; 
At  least  I'm  sure  it  may  be  so  in  Denmark." 

The  act  of  writing  indicated  in  the  stage- 
71 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

directions  at  this  point  need  not  be  re- 
garded as  merely  symbolic.  It  is  literal 
in  its  signification,  being  at  one  with  the 
psychological  action  clearly  denoted  by 
the  language  of  the  passage.  Conscious 
doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  his  own  moral  intu- 
itions (the  "honesty"  of  the  Ghost)  has 
not  entered  Hamlet's  mind.  Deliberation 
and  self-analysis  have  not  yet  conspired  to 
undermine  the  foundations  of  self-trust. 
But  imagination  can  not  compass  the  mon- 
strous crime,  which,  though  accepted  in 
consciousness  as  indubitable,  presents  to 
Hamlet's  reason  the  aspect  of  unreality. 
Amid  the  whirl  of  conflicting  passions,  the 
abhorrent  fact  is  jotted  down  in  visual 
signs,  in  order  to  fix  in  Hamlet's  distracted 
mind  the  fatal  record  of  the  King's  guilt. 
The  subjective  process  here  depicted  is  fol- 
lowed in  the  next  soliloquy  (Act  II,  Scene 
II)  by  a  reactionary  mood  of  self-analysis 
and  doubt.  Absolute  moral  conviction 
does  not  replace  this  wavering  uncertainty 
72 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


until  the  successful  stratagem  of  the  '*  play- 
scene  **  (Act  III,  Scene  III)  has  furnished 
Hamlet  with  conclusive  evidence  of  his 
uncle's  crime. 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  Ham- 
let's fourth  soliloquy  (Act  II,  Scene  II), 
which,  like  each  of  his  subsequent  mono- 
logues, in  Act  III  and  Act  IV,  can  be 
clearly  understood  only  when  studied  in  its 
relation  to  the  general  design,  we  wish  once 
more  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  psychic 
experience  the  earlier  stages  of  which  are 
depicted  in  soliloquy,  is  the  transforming 
process  of  moral  growth,  an  unfolding  of 
the  mind  in  its  upward  struggle,  a  de- 
velopment from  immature  to  mature  man- 
hood. Whatever  age  we  may  assume  for 
Hamlet,  the  student  lately  returned  from 
Wittenberg,  the  text  leaves  no  doubt  as  to 
his  age  at  the  end  of  the  play.  From  the 
words  of  the  grave-digger  we  learn  that 
the  Prince,  at  the  time  of  his  return  to 
Denmark  after  the  fateful  sea-voyage,  is 

73 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

just  thirty  years  old,  the  approximate  age 
of  Intellectual  maturity  among  men,  the 
period  In  which  culminate  those  mighty 
and  revolutionary  changes  which,  from 
the  **  passion-chaos  '*  of  youth,  evolve  the 
philosophic  reason.  Hamlet,  in  the  ear- 
lier scenes  of  the  play,  though  he  possesses 
all  the  noblest  attributes  with  which  lavish 
nature  endows  her  chosen  sons,  is  dis- 
tinctly **  young  Hamlet,'* — Hamlet  the 
paragon  of  "  blown  youth."  Not  so  in 
the  fifth  act,  where  his  discourse  to  Hora- 
tio reveals  a  mind  which  through  the  disci- 
pline of  experience  has  fully  developed  all 
its  sovereign  powers. 

To  preserve  consistency  in  the  psycho- 
logical design  of  the  play,  Shakespeare, 
according  to  his  usual  method,  has  pur- 
posely left  indefinite  the  length  of  time 
required  by  the  dramatic  action.  The 
intervals  which  may  be  supposed  to  elapse 
between  acts  and  even  between  scenes  are 
not  precisely  indicated.  The  period  which 
74 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


intervenes  between  the  events  of  the  last 
scene  of  the  first  act  and  the  occasion 
of  the  soliloquy  beginning,  "  O,  what  a 
rogue  and  peasant  slave  am  II  "  (Act  II, 
Scene  II),  though  relatively  brief,  is  to  be 
measured  by  days,  perhaps,  rather  than  by 
hours.  Amid  the  detested  surroundings 
of  the  actual  world,  the  Ghost's  command- 
ment returns  to  memory  with  insistent 
force.  It  requires  only  the  player's  pa- 
thetic rehearsal  of  the  story  of  Priam's 
slaughter  and  the  tragic  grief  of  Hecuba, 
to  cause  Hamlet's  pent-up  emotions  to 
burst  forth  in  impassioned  monologue. 
The  Prince  of  Denmark  here  assumes  that, 
in  fulfilment  of  an  honorable  duty,  he 
ought  Instantly  to  avenge  his  father's  mur- 
der, and  he  can  think  of  no  reasonable 
justification  or  honorable  excuse  for  his 
delay;  nevertheless,  an  imperative  voice 
from,  the  depths  of  his  spiritual  nature 
gives  pause  to  rash  Impulse.  He  Is  obedi- 
ent to  a  deterring  instinct  which,  though 

75 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

but  darkly  understood,  he  dare  not  ignore. 
The  true  import  and  iupornatwrftl  author- 
ity of  this  restraining  force  become  evident 
to  him  as  events  proceed,  but  here  the  re- 
straint is  only  operative  as  holding  his  pas- 
sions in  leash  and  his  judgment  in  suspense. 
The  mighty  subjective  forces  deterring 
him  from  vengeance,  though  inexplicable, 
are  tentatively  construed  as  premonitory 
instinct  forewarning  against  precipitate 
action.  Striving  to  reconcile  the  dictates 
of  reason  with  the  dissuading  whispers  of 
his  spiritual  nature,  and  groping  vainly  to 
discover  in  outward  conditions  the  suffi- 
cient cause  and  justification  for  an  appar- 
ently inconsistent  reluctance  proceeding 
wholly  from  within,  Hamlet,  with  skepti- 
cal precaution,  is  led  to  question  the  "  hon- 
esty ''  of  the  Ghost, —  to  doubt  the  validity 
of  his  own  well-founded  convictions  re- 
garding his  uncle's  crime, —  concluding 
that  the  true  "  grounds  "  for  his  delay  may 
be,  perchance,  not  lack  of  resolution  or 

76 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


courage,  but  a  want  of  evidence  "  more 
relative  '*  than  that  furnished  by  the  super- 
natural witness  of  a  phantom: 

"The  spirit  that  I  have  seen 
May  be  the  devil;  and  the  devil  hath  power 
To  assume  a  pleasing  shape;  yea,  and  perhaps 
Out  of  my  weakness  and  my  melancholy, 
As  he  is  very  potent  with  such  spirits, 
Abuses  me  to  damn  me.    I'll  have  grounds 
More  relative  than  this.    The  play's  the  thing 
Wherein  I'll  catch  the  conscience  of  the  king." 

In  the  interval  between  the  conception 
and  the  execution  of  the  ingenious  plot  by 
which  Hamlet  essays  to  "  catch  the  con- 
science of  the  king," —  in  this  interval  of 
temporary  release  from  insistent  thoughts 
of  immediate  vengeance  and  from  feelings 
of  self-reproach  consequent  upon  a  morti- 
fying sense  of  neglected  obligation, — 
Hamlet's  mind  reverts  to  philosophic 
questionings  concerning  human  life  and 
destiny,  exploring  with  prescient  awe  the 
infinite  regions  of  speculation,  while  his 
tongue    utters    the    solemn    and    sublime 

77 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

words  of  that  profound  soliloquy  which, 
whether  taken  alone  or  in  its  organic  re- 
lation to  the  progressive  action  of  the 
tragedy,  grandly  illustrates  the  breadth  of 
Shakespeare's  dramatic  design.  No  other 
passage  in  the  play  is  more  familiar  to  the 
popular  mind  than  the  impressive  moncK- 
logue  beginning,  "To  be  or  not  to  be," 
which,  owing  to  the  universality  of  its 
theme,  no  less  than  to  the  solemn  and  medi- 
tative note  which  lends  characteristic 
charm  to  the  deep-meaning  lines,  has  come 
to  be  regarded  by  the  popular  tribunal  as 
peculiarly  "  Hamlefs  soliloquy,"  being,  in 
fact,  peculiarly  an  utterance  of  the  "  uni- 
versal "  Hamlet. 

It  has  been  pointed  out,  in  an  earlier 
paragraph,  that  in  the  passage  which  now 
claims  our  attention  may  be  discovered  the 
profounder  implications  of  Hamlet's  strug- 
gle as  typifying  a  common  experience  of 
the  race.  The  cowardice  of  "  conscience," 
to  which  Hamlet  here  attributes  man's  in- 

78 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


stinctlve  revulsion  to  suicide,  is,  in  the 
final  analysis,  identical  with  the  inexpli- 
cable reluctance  which,  in  the  preceding 
soliloquy,  gave  rise  to  self-accusations  of 
personal  cowardice,  and  with  the  dimly 
recognized  moral  scruple  to  which,  in' the 
soliloquy  next  following,  the  Prince,  still 
goading  himself  to  passionate  vengeance 
with  the  unrelenting  lash  of  sarcasm,  ap- 
plies the  terms  '*  craven  "  and  "  coward." 
This  cowardice  proceeds  from  "  con- 
science," that  is,  from  man's  intuitive 
recognition  of  the  law  that  is  impersonal 
and  divine. 

We  have  said  that  the  soliloquy,  "  To 
be  or  not  to  be,"  is  peculiarly  an  utterance 
of  the  "  universal "  Hamlet.  This  is 
true,  but  not  in  the  absolute  sense  that 
Hamlet's  gloomy  reflections  at  this  point 
in  the  play  voice  the  ultimate  conclusions 
of  human  wisdom.  The  attitude  of  mind 
denoted  by  Hamlet's  course  of  reasoning 
in  this  soliloquy  is  no  more  truly  character- 
79 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

istic  of  the  Prince  than  are  the  earlier  and 
the  later  phases  of  his  intellectual  and 
spiritual  progression.  His  mental  atti- 
tude at  the  end  of  the  play  (Act  V,  Scene 
II)  is  tranquil  and  philosophic.  Resigna- 
tion, acquiescence,  impersonal  devotion  to 
duty  in  the  highest  sense, —  these  are  the 
attributes  of  his  moral  wisdom  as  revealed 
in  his  speeches  to  Horatio  in  the  closing 
scene.  At  the  beginning  of  the  play,  we 
behold  Hamlet  oppressed  by  a  burdening 
sense  of  the  infinite  responsibility  resting 
upon  his  individual  soul,  a  responsibility 
from  which  he  fain  would  shrink,  but  dare 
not,  alas,  lest  he  should  contravene  an  or- 
dinance of  Heaven : 

"O,  that  this  too  too  solid  flesh  would  melt, 
Thaw,  and  resolve  itself  into  a  dew! 
Or  that  the  Everlasting  had  not  fix'd 
His  canon  'gainst  self-slaughter !  " 

The   change  of  mental  attitude  revealed 

in  the  soliloquy,  "  To  be  or  not  to  be," 

though     subtle,     is     nevertheless     clearly 

80 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


marked.  Hamlet  is  still  under  the  domi- 
nant control  of  the  personal  motive.  He 
still  measures  the  worth  of  life  by  stand- 
ards of  selfish  interest  and  desire.  But  he 
has  now  come  to  view  the  human  situation 
more  judicially,  more  profoundly,  and  with 
a  more  philosophic  eye.  He  speaks,  in 
this  soliloquy,  not  for  himself  alone,  but 
for  all  mankind  ("Thus  conscience  doth 
make  cowards  of  us  all '') ,  for  all  mankind 
who  have  not  yet  come  unto  the  highest 
estate  of  moral  wisdom. 

The  next  two  soliloquies  of  Hamlet, — <■ 
that  beginning,  "  'Tis  now  the  very  witch- 
ing time  of  night"  (Act  III,  Scene  II), 
and  that  which  opens  with  the  words, 
"  Now  might  I  do  it  pat,  now  he  is  pray- 
ing "  (Act  III,  Scene  III), —  reveal  the 
dark  and  ominous  drift  of  a  passion  di- 
rectly consequent  upon  Hamlet's  now  abso- 
lute moral  certainty  of  his  uncle's  crime, 
resulting  from  the  King's  guilty  self-be- 
trayal at  the  "play-scene."  That  the 
8i 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

Prince  recognizes  the  perilous  tendency  of 
this  ascendant  passion,  is  clearly  manifest 
in  the  first  of  these  monologues,  which  re- 
lates primarily  to  his  mother,  and  which, 
in  its  closing  lines,  recalls  to  the  reader's 
thought  the  solemn  forewarning  of  the 
Ghost : 

"'TIs  now  the  very  witching  time  of  night, 
When  churchyards  yawn,  and  hell  itself  breathes 

out 
Contagion  to  this  world;  now  could  I  drink  hot 

blood, 
And  do  such  bitter  business  as  the  day 
Would    quake    to    look    on.    Soft!    now    to    my 

mother. 

0  heart,  lose  not  thy  nature;  let  not  ever 
The  soul  of  Nero  enter  this  firm  bosom; 
Let  me  be  cruel,  not  unnatural; 

1  will  speak  daggers  to  her,  but  use  none; 
My  tongue  and  soul  in  this  be  hypocrites: 
How  in  my  words  soever  she  be  shent. 

To  give  them  seals,  never,  my  soul,  consent  I " 

In  the   second  of  the  two  soliloquies, — 

that  which  relates  to  the  King  at  prayer, 

—  Hamlet  checks  the  impulse  to  instant 

82 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


action,  only  to  Indulge,  In  Imagination,  an 
ideal  vengeance  appalling  In  the  horror  of 
its  retributive  justice.  He  contemplates 
not  merely  the  sacrifice  of  life  for  life:  — 
In  return  for  the  purgatorial  pains  presum- 
ably being  suffered  by  his  father,  he  would 
doom  to  eternal  torment  his  uncle's  soul : 

"  Up,  sword,  and  know  thou  a  more  horrid  hent ; 
When  he  is  drunk  asleep,  or  in  his  rage. 
Or  in  the  incestuous  pleasure  of  his  bed; 
At  gaming,  swearing,  or  about  some  act 
That  has  no  relish  of  salvation  in't; 
Then  trip  him,  that  his  heels  may  kick  at  heaven, 
And  that  his  soul  may  be  as  damn'd  and  black 
As  hell,  whereto  it  goes." 

Passion  has  reached  its  climax.  The 
deed  of  vengeance  Is  at  last  fully  deter- 
mined upon, —  the  killing  of  the  King 
when  he  is  "  about  some  act  that  has  no 
relish  of  salvation  in*t.'*  How  soon 
thereafter  does  Hamlet's  fell  purpose  cul- 
minate In  action !  The  thrust  through  the 
arras  is  intended  for  the  King. 

83 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

It  has  been  shown  that  in  the  accident 
fatal  to  Polonius  we  may  discern  the  hand 
of  destiny  thwarting  Hamlet's  purpose, 
and  that  the  tragic  disaster  consequent 
upon  the  impetuous  sword-thrust  may  be 
interpreted  as  a  divine  rebuke,  a  heavenly 
chastisement  and  warning.  Hamlet's  vio- 
lent deed  is  bewailed  by  his  mother  as 
"  rash  and  bloody."  It  has  been  charac- 
terized by  an  eminent  critic  as  an  act  of 
"  blind  passion,"  of  "  hot  impulsive  rage." 
Neither  of  these  descriptions  is  precisely 
true.  Hamlet's  mortal  stroke,  though  im- 
petuous, can  not,  strictly  speaking,  be  re- 
garded as  "  rash."  Still  less  can  it  be  said 
to  spring  from  blind  passion  or  ungovern- 
able rage.  Hamlet  is  here  by  no  means 
an  irresponsible  agent.  Swift,  intuitive 
judgment  preceded  the  homicidal  volition, 
and  the  lightning  thrust  which  followed  is 
wholly  consistent  with  that  quick  decision. 
The  judgment,  however,  is  erroneous,  be- 
ing prejudicially  influenced  by  the  vengeful 

.84 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


passion  to  which  the  Prince  has  given  unre- 
strained indulgence  since  the  moment  of 
his  uncle's  guilty  self-betrayal,  the  proof 
of  the  "  honesty ''  of  the  Ghost  having 
been  misconstrued  by  Hamlet  as  a  justifi- 
cation of  his  bloody  course  of  thought  and 
as  an  incitement  to  speedy  revenge. 

The  accidental  killing  of  Polonius  marks 
the  turning-point  at  once  of  the  dramatic 
and  of  the  psychological  action  of  the 
tragedy.  We  see  here  depicted  the  cru- 
cial phase  of  an  elemental  experience. 
The  personal  motive  of  revenge,  which,  in 
the  first  half  of  the  play,  gains  supremacy 
over  Hamlet's  will,  with  disastrous  conse- 
quence in  the  death  of  an  unintended  vic- 
tim, gradually  yields  dominion  to  the 
authority  of  an  impersonal  motive.  The 
larger  ideal  is  at  first  but  vaguely  ap- 
prehended, and  only  in  exalted  moments, 
but  by  degrees,  along  with  the  ripening  of 
Hamlet's  mind  ever  alive  to  the  progress 
of  providential  event,  this  ideal  becomes 

8s 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

clearly  manifest,  furnishing  the  standard 
and  test  of  right,  by  which  the  lesser  mo- 
tive is  judged. 

The  inference  to  be  derived  from  the 
fact  that  in  the  impetuous  sword-thrust 
through  the  arras,  in  the  middle  of  the 
play,  Hamlet  executed  a  predetermined 
and  deliberate  purpose, —  that  he  is 
vouchsafed  complete  indulgence,  in 
thought  and  in  act,  of  his  vengeful  pas- 
sion, only  to  discover  that  his  mortal  stroke 
thwarts  his  design,  entailing  tragic  dis- 
aster,—  is  unmistakable.  Without  taint- 
ing his  soul  with  the  guilt  of  intended  evil, 
the  untoward  event  startles  his  mind  from 
the  contemplation  of  inward  to  that  of  out- 
ward fact.  •  It  thus  widens  his  intellec- 
tual horizon,  opening  his  consciousness  to 
the  imminent  authority  of  divine  law  oper- 
ating visibly  in  the  objective  world.  The 
full  significance  of  this  divine  rebuke, — 
this  negative  lesson, —  is  purposely  ob- 
scured at  this  point  in  the  play.  But  the 
86 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


incident,  nevertheless,  is  interpreted  by 
Hamlet  as  a  symbol  and  a  revelation. 
Hereafter  his  mind  shall  be  ever  on  the 
alert  for  the  heavenly  signal.  Truth 
which  is  derived  from  self-analysis  and 
introspective  thought,  is  partial.  Per- 
fect wisdom  shall  come  only  with  the 
knowledge  of  external  truth  which  is 
written  in  the  ways  of  Providence.  To 
**  reasonings  of  the  mind  turned  inward  " 
must  be  added  reasonings  of  the  mind 
turned  outward.  To  knowledge  of  the 
law  that  is  within  man's  members  must  be 
added  knowledge  of  the  law  that  is  divine. 
Concerning  the  occasion  and  significance 
of  Hamlet's  last  soliloquy  (Act  IV,  Scene 
IV) ,  something  has  already  been  said.  It 
has  been  shown  that  the  example  of  For- 
tlnbras,  whose  reckless  venture  against 
Poland  involves  not  only  the  hazard  of  his 
own  life,  but  the  "  imminent  death  of 
twenty  thousand  men," — an  example 
cited  by  Hamlet  to  his  own  dispraise, —  is 

87 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

an  Instance  **  gross  as  earth  "  of  action 
springing  from  ambitious  pride,  in  which 
the  motive  of  honor  (the  personal  mo- 
tive) is  farthest  removed  from  moral  duty. 
Regarding  the  import  of  this  soliloquy  as 
marking  a  subtle  but  significant  phase  in 
Hamlet's  transforming  struggle,  a  few 
additional  words  of  explanation  are  re- 
quired. Hamlet's  utterances  at  this  point 
in  the  play,  while  they  denote  a  reactionary 
mood  of  self-distrust  analogous  to  that 
revealed  in  his  fourth  soliloquy  (Act  II, 
Scene  II),  exhibit,  nevertheless,  a  more 
advanced  stage  of  thought  and  feeling, 
induced  by  the  precedent  subjective  expe- 
rience of  Act  III.  From  the  throes  of 
penitent  anguish  a  higher  spiritual  life  is 
'struggling  to  be  born.  Conscience,  the 
authoritative  force  of  which  is  confessed 
in  the  previous  soliloquy  ("To  be  or  not 
to  be  ")  as  forbidding  the  act  of  self- 
slaughter,  now  asserts  its  sway  in  conscious* 
ness  as  a  negative  factor  in  all  his  reason- 
88 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


ings  concerning  the  act  of  vengeance.  Be 
it  observed,  however,  that  its  authority  is 
as  yet  only  negative,  being  recognized 
merely  as  a  deterrent  force,  and  not  as  a 
clear  and  positive  intimation  of  right. 
Passion  is  still  at  war  with  conscience,  the 
sovereignty  of  which  is  contemptuously 
disputed  by  reason.  The  moral  impulse 
is  still  characterized  by  Hamlet  as  mere 
"  craven  scruple,'' —  the  "  conscience  '' 
which  "  dotS  make  cowards  of  us  all." 
Hamlet  is  here  represented  not  as  certain 
of  the  wisdom  of  his  inaction,  but  only  as 
less  absolute  in  the  assurance  that  he  is  not 
right  in  delaying  the  deed  of  vengeance. 
He  dimly  recognizes,  at  best,  the  "  one 
part  wisdom  "  of  the  thought  which  in- 
sistently admonishes  against  precipitate 
action.  In  this  soliloquy  we  find  Hamlet 
for  the  last  time  fanning  the  embers  of 
vindictive  passion  —  those  ever-subsiding 
fires  which  are  now  rendered  ineffectual 
by   the   countervailing  authority   of  con- 

89 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 


science.  His  inward  struggle,  having  be- 
come less  violently  emotional,  more  dispas- 
sionate, IS  represented  in  terms  almost 
wholly  mtellectual.  We  feel  that  the  con- 
flict IS  nearing  its  end,  and  that  Hamlet  is 
now  far  removed,  mentally  and  spiritually, 
from  any  impulsive  act  of  mere  personal 
revenge,— notwithstanding  the  final  ex- 
clamatory words  of  vain  resolve  with  which 
he  essays  to  revive  a  dying  purpose. 

The  mind  and  character  of  Hamlet  are 
again  and  again  brought  into  sharp  con- 
trast with  other  and  lesser  intellects  and 

natures.     To    the    rparlpi-    -^rU^       •     ■ 
,    ,     .       "'*^    reader    who,    viewing 

Hamlet  s  situation  through  Hamlet's  self- 
depreciatory  eyes,  is  prone  to  exalt  the 
character  and  laud  the  conduct  of  Fortin- 
bras  as  furnishing  an  ideal  of  heroic  man- 
hood worthy  of  Hamlet's  emulation,  the 
pathetically  unheroic  transformation  of 
Laertes  in  Act  IV,  Scene  VII,—  his  sudden 
conversion  from  the  reckless  and  uncom- 
promising champion  of  honor  to  the  des- 
90 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


picable  estate  of  a  mere  dupe  of  villainy, 
the  willing  tool  of  a  vile  king, —  pre- 
sents an  insurmountable  difficulty,  the 
effect  of  the  latter  incident,  in  such  case, 
being  to  neutralize  the  impression  received 
from  the  previous  scene.  It  has  been 
noted  in  an  earlier  paragraph  that  the 
character  of  Hamlet  finds  its  perfect  an- 
tithesis in  that  of  Claudius,  the  contrast 
between  these  "  mighty  opposites  "  consist- 
ing in  the  fact  that  while  the  former  em- 
bodies in  an  ideal  manner  the  attributes 
and  tendencies  of  a  most  noble  and  moral 
nature,  the  latter  typifies  the  reverse  human 
qualities.  The  contrast  between  Hamlet 
and  Laertes,  unlike  that  between  Ham- 
let and  Claudius,  is  not  the  contrast  be- 
tween a  virtuous  and  a  vicious  nature,  but 
rather  that  between  a  profound  and  a 
superficial  mind.  From  the  speeches  of 
Laertes  in  Act  IV,  Scene  V,  or  from  his 
words  in  Act  I,  Scene  III,  the  reader  has 
no  reason  to  doubt  the  essential  justice  of 
91 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

Hamlet's  magnanimous  description  of 
Ophelia's  brother  as  a  "  very  noble  youth." 
The  motive  of  revenge,  prompted  by  filial 
devotion,  is  not  less  commendable  in 
Laertes  than  in  Hamlet.  It  is  in  their 
mental  attitude  toward  life  and  life's  re- 
sponsibilities that  the  two  characters  differ 
so  radically.  Ultimate  and  eternal  issues 
have  little  or  no  weight  with  Laertes.  In 
pursuance  of  vengeance  he  would  give  to 
neglect  all  other  obligations,  whether  hu- 
man or  divine: 

"To  hell,  allegiance!  vows,  to  the  blackest  devil! 
Conscience  and  grace,  to  the  profoundest  pit! 
I  dare  damnation.    To  this  point  I  stand: 
That  both  the  worlds  I  give  to  negligence, 
Let  come  what  comes;  only  I'll  be  reveng'd 
Most  throughly  for  my  father," 

Such  blustering  words  of  reckless  prof- 
anation reveal,  not  indeed  an  ignoble 
nature,  but  a  mind  incapable  of  profound 
moral  discernment, —  a  mind  which  in  its 
overweening  presumption  can  as  readily 
92 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


defy  the  holy  ordinances  of  Heaven  as  re- 
nounce all  vows  of  earthly  allegiance. 
Though  not  without  heroic  traits,  the 
superficial  Laertes,  true  son  of  the  shallow 
Polonlus,  Is  pathetically  lacking  in  all  the 
sovereign  attributes  of  mind  and  character 
which  constitute  Hamlet's  greatness,  en- 
abling him  to  discern  beneath  the  outward 
shows  of  life  the  eternal  verities  of  the 
spiritual  world. 


93 


In  the  foregoing  paragraphs  attention 
has  been  confined  mainly  to  the  ear- 
lier stages  of  Hamlet's  Internal  struggle, 
as  revealed  through  the  medium  of  solil- 
oquy In  the  first  four  acts  of  the  play.  It 
remains  for  us  now  to  consider,  In  its  rela- 
tion to  that  struggle,  the  culminant  phase 
of  his  moral  evolution,  as  Indicated  by  his 
discourse  to  Horatio  In  Act  V.  What,  pre- 
cisely, is  the  change  wrought  in  Hamlet  by 
experience  and  reflection  during  the  period 
of  his  enforced  absence  from  Denmark? 
As  the  result  of  protracted  meditation  on 
his  miraculous  and  providential  exploit, 
what  is  his  final  outlook  upon  the  world  of 
man,  and  what  his  mental  attitude  toward 
the  question  of  vengeance?  We  have 
shown  that  the  crucial  conflict  depicted  in 
94 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

Hamlet's  soliloquies  is  the  transforming 
process  of  mental  and  moral  growth,  an 
intellectual  and  spiritual  ripening.  Ham- 
let's solemn  utterances  to  Horatio,  in  the 
fifth  act,  reveal  a  mind  which  through 
tragic  ordeal  has  come  into  the  heritage 
of  moral  wisdom.  Only  in  the  fifth  act 
does  the  Prince  of  Denmark  move  before 
us  in  the  complete  majesty  and  splendor 
of  his  matured  faculties.  His  mind  is  now 
serene  —  his  will  no  longer  in  opposition 
to  the  will  of  Heaven.  His  violent  men- 
tal conflict  has  subsided,  and  something 
like  a  settled  peace  has  come  upon  his  soul. 
Soliloquy  is  at  an  end;  purpose  and  action 
are  at  last  in  close  accord;  and  for  the  first 
time  in  the  play  Hamlet's  philosophic  gen- 
eralizations concerning  human  life  and 
destiny  may  be  construed  as  Shakespeare's 
ultimate  word  on  the  problematic  theme. 

The    fifth    act    comprises    two    scenes. 
The  first  scene  opens  with  Hamlet's  satiric 
moralizlngs  at  the  edge  of  the  newly-made 
95 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

grave,  and  closes  with  the  dramatic  inci- 
dent in  which,  impelled  by  a  "  towering 
passion "  evoked  by  the  **  bravery "  of 
Laertes'  grief  for  Ophelia,  Hamlet  leaps 
into  the  grave.  Scene  II  opens  with  Ham- 
let's iiO'loiMM  rehearsal  of  the  "  circum- 
stance "  of  his  providential  return  to  Den- 
mark on  the  pirate  ship,  and  ends  with  the 
fatal  fencing-match  and  its  tragic  sequel 
of  divine  retribution. 

Hamlet's  reflections  in  Scene  I, —  his 
somber  meditations  on  the  vanity  of  hu- 
man ambition,  pride,  and  power, —  denote 
a  mind  engrossed  with  the  consideration 
of  infinite  and  eternal  issues.  There 
could  be  no  greater  error  than  to  assume 
that  his  caustic  animadversions  on  the 
presumption  of  the  lawyer  and  the  poli- 
tician, on  the  sycophancy  of  the  courtier, 
and  on  the  common  destiny  which  awaits 
all  mankind, —  which  humbles  the  tower- 
ing pride  of  an  Alexander  or  a  Caesar,  even 
as   it   silences   the    frivolous   mirth   of   a 

96 


[  AND  ITS  SOLUTION 

Yorick, —  are  to  be  construed  as  evidence 
of  cynicism  or  fatalism  on  Hamlet^s  part. 
In  the  depths  of  his  nature  Hamlet  is 
neither  a  cynic  nor  a  fatalist.  His  irony 
questions  not  the  spiritual  verities  of  life. 
In  spite  of  the  seemingly  fatalistic  tenor  of 

I  his  mood,  his  whimsical  speculations  at  this 

point  are  in  no  wise  incompatible  with  an 
absolute  acceptance  of  the  providential 
wisdom  of  God. 

Hamlet's  discourse  in  Scene  II  denotes 
a  more  exalted  mood  and  a  more  advanced 
phase  of  thought  than  are  represented  in 
the  previous  scene,  and  implies  a  change  in 
mental  attitude  induced  by  the  mortifying 
realization  that  In  an  unguarded  moment 
of  *'  towering  passion  ''  he  had  forgotten 
himself  to  Laertes,  in  whose  cause  he  now 
beholds  the  image  of  his  own.  In  the  in- 
terval of  self-analysis  immediately  follow- 
ing the  stormy  outburst  at  Ophelia's  grave, 
Hamlet's  soul  is  again  brought  before  the 
judgment-bar  of  conscience,  and  by  a  sec- 

97 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

ond  **  chastisement  of  remorse,"  which 
operates  as  a  final  and  authoritative  check 
upon  self-indulgent  passion,  is  prepared  at 
last  for  its  complete  spiritual  awakening. 
Sharp  indeed  is  the  contrast  between  the 
mocking  and  ironic  humor  of  his  reflec- 
tions on  the  vanity  of  human  presumption, 
and  the  sober  and  reverent  mood  in  which 
he  ponders  the  infinite  mystery  of  Provi- 
dence. On  reading  the  opening  lines  of 
Scene  II  we  are  at  once  struck  by  Ham- 
let's air  of  abstraction,  the  manner  of  one 
absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  ultra- 
mundane things.  We  are  impressed,  like- 
wise, by  the  solemnity  of  his  utterances, 
denoting  in  the  speaker's  mind:  (i)  a 
recognition  of  the  certitude  of  Provi- 
dential Wisdom  shaping  the  affairs  of  men ; 
(2)  religious  resignation  to  the  will  of 
Heaven,  by  which,  through  conscience,  his 
action  is  now  wholly  controlled;  and  (3) 
a  deepened  sense  of  the  inscrutable  mys- 

98 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


tery  of  human  life.  With  absolute  con- 
sistency and  precision  of  detail  has 
Shakespeare  depicted  the  culminant  phase 
of  Hamlet's  moral  development, —  Ham- 
let's attitude  of  mind  in  the  closing  scene 
being  indicated  not  only  by  philosophic 
generalizations  (*' There's  a  divinity  that 
shapes  our  ends";  "We  defy  augury: 
there's  a  special  providence  in  the  fall  of 
a  sparrow,"  etc.)  in  which  the  Prince 
formulates  his  religious  faith,  and  by  the 
prevailing  tenor  of  his  discourse  to 
Horatio,  but  also  by  specific  observations 
of  a  more  abstruse  character  concerning 
the  subconscious  operations  of  his  own 
mind  under  the  miraculous  control  of 
omniscient  intelligence,  implying  on  Ham- 
let's part  a  recognition  of  man's  occult  and 
mysterious  relation  to  the  supernatural 
order. 

Our   interpretation   of  the   tragedy   of 
Hamlet  may  fittingly  conclude  with  a  brief 

99 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

analysis  of  the  one  remaining  passage  of 
the  play  requiring  elucidation  in  view  of 
the  theory  advanced  in  these  pages.  The 
passage  to  which  we  refer,  the  only  pas- 
sage in  Act  V  bearing  directly  on  the  ques- 
tion of  vengeance,  occupies  a  subordinate 
setting  in  the  text,  immediately  after  Ham- 
let's account  of  his  providential  exploit, 
and,  from  its  suspended  character  as  an  un- 
answered and  unanswerable  question,  par- 
takes somewhat  of  the  nature  of  soliloquy, 
and  depicts  with  marvelous  delicacy  of 
shading  the  last  subtle  phase  of  Hamlet's 
internal  struggle: 

**Does  it  not,  thinks't  thee,  stand  me  now  upon  — 
He    that    hath    kill'd    my    king    and    whor'd    my 

mother, 
Popp'd  in  between  the  election  and  my  hopes, 
Thrown  out  his  angle  for  my  proper  life, 
And   with   such   cozenage  —  is't  not  perfect  con- 
science 
To  quit  him  with  this  arm?   and  is't  not  to  be 

damn'd. 
To  let  this  canker  of  our  nature  come 
In  further  evil  ?  " 

lOO 


AND  ITS  SOLUTION 


It  win  be  observed  that  the  question  of 
vengeance  here  presents  itself  to  Hamlet's 
mind  In  a  dual  aspect.  No  longer  does 
the  Prince  of  Denmark  regard  the  killing 
of  the  King  as  an  Immediate  and  unrelated 
obligation.  He  now  contemplates  the 
deed  both  from  the  personal  and  from  the 
impersonal  viewpoint;  and  instead  of 
arraigning  himself,  as  on  previous  occa- 
sions, for  the  cowardice  of  neglected  ac- 
tion, he  here  dispassionately  weighs  the 
passionate  motive  in  the  balance  of  con- 
science, on  the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  seeks  to  reconcile  this  motive  with 
the  absolute  monitions  of  religious  duty. 
His  words  clearly  denote  an  attitude  of 
mind  in  which  the  conflicting  elements  of 
his  protracted  moral  struggle  are  all  but 
mutually  harmonized.  Horatio  does  not 
venture  an  answer  to  questions  of  con- 
science and  duty  which  time  and  circum- 
stance alone  can  answer.  Complete  recon- 
cilement of  the  personal  with  the  imper- 

lOI 


THE  HAMLET  PROBLEM 

sonal  motive  does  not  occur  until  the 
heaven-determined  moment  when  Ham- 
let consummates  his  appointed  task,  only 
as  the  sable  curtain  of  death  is  falling  on 
the  last  scene  of  all  of  his  tragic  human 
story. 


102 


AUTHOR'S  CORRECTIONS 

Page  5,  fifth  line.     "o'erweigh$"  should  be  "must  o'erweigh". 

Page  5,  sixteenth  line.     "To  be  or  not  to  be"  should  be  "To  be,  or 
not  to  be". 

Page  27,  ninth  line,     "severeign"  should  be  "sovereign". 

Page  33,  nineteenth  line,     "promoting"  should  be  "furthering". 

Page  33,  twentieth  line,     "will"  should  be  "purpose". 

Page  52.     The  sentence  beginning  on  twentieth  line  should  read: 
"Not  impotence  of  will,  nor  morbid  irresolution, 
but  the  inherent  moral  forces  of  his  nature,  delay 
the  execution  of  his  revenge." 

Page  57,  second  line,     "the"  should  be  "those". 

Page  57,  next  to  last  line,     "doth"  should  be  "does". 

Page  62,  second  line,     "hair-brained"  should  be  "harebrained". 

Pages  74-75.     The  sentence  beginning  on  page  74,  last  line,  should 
read: 

"The  period  which  intervenes  between  the  events  of 
Act  I  and  the  occasion  of  Hamlet's  soliloquy  in 
Act  II,  Scene  II,  is  to  be  measured  by  weeks  rather 
than  by  days." 

Page  76,  second  line.     Omit  "supernatural". 

Page  76,  fifth  line,     "only  operative"  should  be  "operative  only". 

Page  96,  sixth  line.     Omit  "solemn". 

Page  96.     Ninth  and  tenth  lines  should  read:  "killing  of  the  King 
and  the  death  of  Hamlet." 

Page  99,  nineteenth  line,     "supernatural"  should  be  "providential". 

Page  102,  next  to  last  line,     "scene  of  all  of"  should  be 
"scene  of". 


POETS  OF  OHIO 

Selections    Representing    the    Poetical    Work    of    Ohio 

Authors   from   the  Pioneer  Period  to  the  Present 

Day,  with  Biographical  Sketches  and  Notes. 

BY 

EMERSON    VENABLE 

One  Volume,   8vo,   356  pages,   printed  on  fine  antique  laid 

paper   and   bound    in    full    cloth;    with   handsome    frontispiece 

comprising  portraits  of  leading  authors.     Net  $1.50. 

The  Ohio  State  Journal. — "  This  volume  contains  biographical 
sketches  of  thirty-four  of  the  poets  of  Ohio,  with  copious 
quotations  showing  the  character  of  their  poetic  genius. 
Comparisons  are  hardly  proper,  but  it  may  be  pardonable  to 
claim  that  no  State  in  the  Union  can  make  a  better  showing 
of  poetic  expression  than  Ohio.  These  pages  sustain  such 
a  claim.  .  .  .  Gallagher,  Howells,  Kinney,  the  Carys,  the 
Piatts,  Lytle,  Venable,  Edith  Thomas,  Dunbar,  Read,  and 
all  that  bright  galaxy  of  poets  who  have  expressed  in  happy 
lyric  the  inmost  soul  of  the  State  they  honored  —  let  us 
never  cease  in  honoring  them,  and  let  us  often  take  down 
the  record  of  their  inspiring  thoughts,  and  give  to  our  own 
lives  their  benediction  and  their  grace." 

The  Sun  (New  York). — "The  great  State  of  Ohio,  not  con- 
tent with  being  the  maker  of  Presidents  and  of  capable  citi- 
zens for  public  offices,  takes  pride  likewise  in  its  poets.  .  .  . 
It  is  a  very  respectable  showing  that  the  Buckeye  State 
makes.  .  ,  .  Ohio  has  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  her  Par- 
nassus." 

The  Chicago  Evening  Post. — "  It  is  surprising  how  largely  the 
popular  American  poetry  of  yesterday  is  represented  in  this 
collection."  . 

The  Cincinnati  Enquirer. — **  The  volume  *  Poets  of  Ohio  is 
remarkable  and  deserving  of  careful  attention.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  a  work;  not  a  mere  popular  compilation  hastily 
gathered  and  put  together  without  special  order  or  purpose, 
but  a  scholarly  and  critical  presentation,  according  to  an 
historical  plan,  of  what  its  editor  considers  the  best,  and 
only  the  best,  poetical  literature  of  a  period  and  section  of 
our  country  exceptionally  productive  in  that  form  of  writ- 
ing, which  period  and  section,  however,  have  not  hitherto 
been  made  the  subject  of  adequate  treatment  as  to  their  lit- 
erary importance  by  any  competent  pen." 

The  Commercial  Tribune  (Cincinnati). — "  Of  the  notable  in- 
tellectual development  of  the  people  of  Ohio  there  can  be  no 
better  evidence  than  is  furnished  by  Mr.  Venable's  attract- 
ive and  remarkable  book.  .  .  .  The  volume  may  be  heartily 
commended  to  all  teachers.  It  should  be  put  in  every  school 
library  of  the  State,  for  from  it  our  youth  can  learn  that 
Ohio,  Mother  of  Presidents,  is  also  the  Mother  of  Poets." 

105 


The  Ohio  Educational  Monthly. — "  It  ought  to  be  the  joy  and 
pride  of  every  one  who  appreciates  literature  that  Ohio  has 
made  such  a  noble  contribution  to  poetry  and  to  have  the 
choicest  of  these  poems  with  sketches  of  their  authors  gath- 
ered together  in  a  single  volume.  Mr.  Venable  has  done  us 
all  a  splendid  service  and  for  this  we  should  all  be  grateful." 

The  Catholic  Columbian. — "  More  than  a  mere  collection  of 
poems,  more  than  an  Ohio  anthology,  more  than  a  literary 
text  book  is  the  volume  entitled  *  Poets  of  Ohio.'  ...  It  is, 
indeed,  all  of  these;  but  it  is,  in  addition,  a  beacon  light 
thrown  upon  the  past  history  of  the  State,  her  eminent  sons 
and  daughters,  her  legends,  her  beauties  of  landscape,  and 
especially  upon  the  traditions  of  literature  which,  even  in 
pioneer  days,  were  part  of  the  heritage  of  Ohio,  claimed 
from  her  ancestry  of  the  Eastern  seaboard." 

The  Dial  (Chicago). — "  Ohio  has  had  thirty-four  poets  deemed 
worthy  of  inclusion  in  this  volume,  and  many  of  them  are 
of  more  than  local  renown.  .  .  .  Altogether,  Ohio  makes 
almost  as  creditable  a  showing  in  poetry  as  in  politics.  The 
book  is  dignified  in  appearance  and  in  editing." 


io6 


A  BUCKEYE   BOYHOOD 

BY 
WILLIAM  HENRY  VENABLE 

AUTROK  OP  "A  Dream  of  Empire,"   "Beginnings  of  Lit- 
erary Culture  in  the  Ohio  Valley,"  "  Footprints  of 
THE  Pioneers,"   **  Tales  from   Ohio  History," 
"  Saga  of  the  Oak  and  Other  Poems," 
"  Floridian  Sonnets,"  etc. 
Handsomely  bound  —  Red  Buckram.     Net  $1.25. 

Literary  Digest. — "  Mr.  Venable  has  a  charming  talent  as  a 
writer  and  it  has  never  been  exhibited  more  fully  than  in 
these  delightful  reminiscences  of  his  own  life." 

New  York  Times. — "  It  is  evident  that  Dr.  Venable  had  a 
happy  and  an  interesting  boyhood,  and  his  account  of  it 
makes  a  most  wholesome  book  for  the  reading  of  the  boys 
and  girls  of  to-day." 

The  Dial.—"  The  charm  of  pioneer  life  in  the  backwoods  is 
felt  in  every  chapter  and  almost  every  page  of  '  A  BUCK- 
EYE BOYHOOD'  from  the  pen  of  a  Buckeye  author  of 
note.     Dr.  William  Henry  Venable." 

Newark  Call.-^"  The  author  combines  historic  realism  with  im- 
agination, invests  the  scenes  of  his  boyhood  with  a  charm 
that  is  idyllic  and  the  story  of  his  youthful  days  is  inter- 
esting and  is  told  with  mingled  humor  and  pathos,  mirth, 
satire,  wisdom  and  philosophy." 

The  Salt  Lake  Tribune. — '*  This  is  a  most  entertaining  story 
in  which  the  boy  of  seventy  years  ago  is  described  through 
all  his  boyhood  and  youthful  experiences.  The  work  is  de- 
cidedly an  attractive  one,  written  in  a  manner  sure  to  cap- 
tivate the  reader  and  hold  him  fast  to  the  end." 

Grand  Rapids  Herald.—"  *  A  BUCKEYE  BOYHOOD  '  is  one 
of  the  most  delightful  sketches  of  rural  life  in  Ohio  yet 
issued." 

Buffalo  Express. — "  Dr.  William  H.  Venable,  the  Ohio  poet, 
novelist,  and  historian,  has  written  a  delightful  account  of 
his  early  years.     It  is  an  entertaining  chronicle." 

The  Pittsburg  Dispatch. — "  An  absorbing  narrative,  replete 
with  humor  and  pathos,  mirth,  satire,  wisdom  and  philos- 
ophy." 

Worcester  Evening  Gazette. — "  The  book  deserves  a  place  on 
library  shelves  quite  near  Charles  Dudley  Warner's  '  Being 
a  Boy.'  " 

Chicago  Tribune. — "  Dr.  Wm.  H.  Venable  presents  with  felici- 
tous ingenuousness  and  some  reality  the  homely  pictures  of 
ordinary  country  life  in  southern  Ohio.  It  is  interesting 
and  edifying." 

San  Francisco  Chronicle. — "  The  book  is  of  instructive  value." 
STEWART  &  KIDD  COMPANY, 

Publishers,  Cincinnati, 

107 


/ 


1 1 


